West Virginia Supreme Court Ruling Helps Consumers

Dan Frith

Contributor

0 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe

The "learned intermediary" doctrine has been used for decades as a defense to product liability claims - primarily used by the manufacturers of prescription drugs. The doctrine relieves a drug manufacturer from the duty to warn a patient about the dangers inherent in the use of the product. Since the drug can only be obtained via a doctor's order or prescription, the learned intermediary doctrine provides that the manufacturer discharges its duty to warn the patient by issuing a warning to the patient's prescribing physician. Well...the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeal has put a stop to this unfair defense!

In West Virginia v. Karl, 2007 W. Va. LEXIS 57 (W. Va. June 27, 2007), the court rejected the learned intermediary doctrine in a case involving the drug Propulsid, a medication which is reported to have caused serious cardiac arrhythmias including ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation. The drug is no longer available in the US.

The court found the learned intermediary defense was outdated and rejected its application in claims against drug manufacturers which relies upon direct-to-consumer saturation advertising via television, radio, and print advertisements. You see...Big Pharma wants to push those life-enhancing prescription drugs on television but if there is a problem they point to the doctor who wrote the prescription and say, look its the doctor's fault! Its about time someone held Big Pharma accountable for its actions!