Annette Lorraine Anderson v. McNeilab Inc., D/B/A McNeil Pharmaceutical

Fifth Circuit

Annette Lorraine Anderson v. McNeilab Inc., D/B/A McNeil Pharmaceutical

831 F.2d 92, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14293, 56 U.S.L.W. 2280

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 1987

Docket87-3198

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 831 F.2d 92 (Annette Lorraine Anderson v. McNeilab Inc., D/B/A McNeil Pharmaceutical) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Annette Lorraine Anderson v. McNeilab Inc., D/B/A McNeil Pharmaceutical, 831 F.2d 92, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14293, 56 U.S.L.W. 2280 (5th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Annette Anderson, joined by her husband, appeals an adverse summary judgment entered in her Louisiana diversity action against the defendant manufacturer of Zomax, a prescription drug. Zomax was prescribed by a physician for her use, when needed, for sinus problems. No sooner had she taken the first dose than she suffered a severe reaction, with — she claims — resulting residual damage to her heart. 1 We affirm.

Counsel for the Andersons defines as his sole issue advanced on appeal:

Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the adequacy of a warning accompanying a prescription drug.

We reject this suggestion that a mere allegation of inadequacy in the warning of side effects on a prescription drug makes a jury issue. This case itself is illustrative of why we do so.

It is undisputed that the defendant — by means of drug package inserts, the Zomax listing in the Physician’s Desk Reference, and broadcast letters to physicians — repeatedly warned against prescribing Zomax for persons, such as Mrs. Anderson, who suffer from aspirin sensitivity. Under Louisiana law, a drug manufacturer has discharged its duty to consumers of its prescription drugs when it has reasonably informed prescribing physicians of the dangers of harm from such a drug. Cobb v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 444 So.2d 203 (La.App.1983). We agree with the trial court that the means and the warning presented here were sufficient as a matter of law. 2

AFFIRMED.

1

. This claim is hotly disputed, but we need not reach it.

2

. Plaintiffs advance a belated claim of negligence, not made in the complaint to the trial court. Such a claim comes too late. Moreover, "at the point of warning of drug side effects ... negligence and strict liability become ... identical." Miller v. Upjohn Co., 465 So.2d 42, 43 (La.App.1985).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Annette Anderson, joined by her husband, appeals an adverse summary judgment entered in her Louisiana diversity action against the defendant manufacturer of Zomax, a prescription drug. Zomax was prescribed by a physician for her use, when needed, for sinus problems. No sooner had she taken the first dose than she suffered a severe reaction, with — she claims — resulting residual damage to her heart. 1 We affirm.

Counsel for the Andersons defines as his sole issue advanced on appeal:

Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the adequacy of a warning accompanying a prescription drug.

We reject this suggestion that a mere allegation of inadequacy in the warning of side effects on a prescription drug makes a jury issue. This case itself is illustrative of why we do so.

It is undisputed that the defendant — by means of drug package inserts, the Zomax listing in the Physician’s Desk Reference, and broadcast letters to physicians — repeatedly warned against prescribing Zomax for persons, such as Mrs. Anderson, who suffer from aspirin sensitivity. Under Louisiana law, a drug manufacturer has discharged its duty to consumers of its prescription drugs when it has reasonably informed prescribing physicians of the dangers of harm from such a drug. Cobb v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 444 So.2d 203 (La.App.1983). We agree with the trial court that the means and the warning presented here were sufficient as a matter of law. 2

AFFIRMED.

1

. This claim is hotly disputed, but we need not reach it.

2

. Plaintiffs advance a belated claim of negligence, not made in the complaint to the trial court. Such a claim comes too late. Moreover, "at the point of warning of drug side effects ... negligence and strict liability become ... identical." Miller v. Upjohn Co., 465 So.2d 42, 43 (La.App.1985).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 F.2d 92, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14293, 56 U.S.L.W. 2280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annette-lorraine-anderson-v-mcneilab-inc-dba-mcneil-pharmaceutical-ca5-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack