Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T20:15:17.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Market Share Liability and the Health Care Professional

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

David B. Brushwood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Attorneys practicing in the area of drug-products liability occasionally encounter a case in which there is no question that the drug taken was defective or that misrepresentations were made concerning the drug, but it is impossible to identify the particular drug company that manufactured the product taken by the patient. This problem undoubtedly will be encountered more frequently in the years to come in light of the almost uniform repeal of antisubstitution laws, resulting in generic products being dispensed far more frequently now than in the past. A pharmacist will be unlikely to remember, years or even months later, which company’s product was used to fill a particular prescription. To resolve this problem, pharmacists in the future may have a duty to create and retain detailed records concerning which manufacturer’s products were used to fill specific prescriptions. Such records, if properly maintained, would eliminate problems encountered in many cases in which defective generic drugs were dispensed.

Type
Pharmacy Law
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 1981 , pp. 30 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

For an analysis of the potential cases dealing solely with the drug DES see Comment, DES and a Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability, Fordham Law Review 46 (5):963 (April 1978).Google Scholar
Texas recently became the 49th state to adopt such legislation.Google Scholar
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 607 P.2d 924 (Cal. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912(1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 937.Google Scholar
Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948); The Restatement (Second) of Torts §443B has approved the rule of this case.Google Scholar
Summers, supra note 5, at 3, quoting Oliver v. Miles, 110 So. 666, 668. (Miss. 1927).Google Scholar
Sindell, , supra note 3, at 930.Google Scholar
Id. at 937.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Ybarra v. Spangard, 154 P.2d 687 (Cal. 1944).Google Scholar
Id. at 691.Google Scholar
Ybarra v. Spangard, 208 P.2d 445 (Cal. App. 1949). (In the original Ybarra v. Spangard, supra note 11, the court remanded the case to allow the defendants an opportunity to overcome the inference of negligence. They were unable to do so; judgment was entered for the plaintiff and affirmed on appeal).Google Scholar
Frost v. Des Moines Still College of Osteopathy, and Surgery, 79 N.W.2d 306 (Iowa 1956); Beaudom v. Watertown Memorial Hospital, 145 N.W.2d 166 (Wisc. 1966); Kitto v. Gilbert, 570 P.2d 544 (Colo. App. 1977).Google Scholar
Rhodes v. DeHaan, 337 P.2d 1043 (Kan. 1959); Talbot v. Dr. W. H. Groves' Latter-Day Saints Hospital, Inc., 440 P.2d 872 (Utah 1968).Google Scholar