Kintigh v. Abbott Pharmacy

Michigan Court of Appeals

Kintigh v. Abbott Pharmacy

503 N.W.2d 657, 200 Mich. App. 92

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 1993

DocketDocket 143369

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 503 N.W.2d 657 (Kintigh v. Abbott Pharmacy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kintigh v. Abbott Pharmacy, 503 N.W.2d 657, 200 Mich. App. 92 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

Weaver, J.

Plaintiff brought suit against defendants, twelve pharmacies and twenty-two pharmacists, alleging that defendants repeatedly sold Schedule V (21 USC 812), nonprescription, codeine-based cough syrup to plaintiff, perpetuating his preexisting substance abuse problem. Plaintiff alleged defendants’ repeated cough syrup sales to him constituted negligence and a breach of the professional standard defendants owed him. Defendants collectively moved for summary disposition under both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(0(10). The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), stating that they owed no duty to identify an addicted customer and then refuse to sell him a controlled substance. Plaintiff now appeals as of right. We affirm.

Plaintiff asserts that the pharmacists owed him the duty to refrain from dispensing to him Schedule V, nonprescription controlled substances. We disagree. The claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery. Wade v Dep’t of Corrections, 439 Mich 158; 483 NW2d 26 (1992).

This Court has previously rejected the theory that a pharmacist owes a customer a legal duty to monitor drug usage. Adkins v Mong, 168 Mich App 726; 425 NW2d 151 (1988). We find the pharmacists owed no duty to plaintiff to discover his addicted status; failing knowledge of that, they had no duty to refuse to sell to him.

Affirmed.

Michael J. Kelly, P.J., concurred.

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

Weaver, J.

Plaintiff brought suit against defendants, twelve pharmacies and twenty-two pharmacists, alleging that defendants repeatedly sold Schedule V (21 USC 812), nonprescription, codeine-based cough syrup to plaintiff, perpetuating his preexisting substance abuse problem. Plaintiff alleged defendants’ repeated cough syrup sales to him constituted negligence and a breach of the professional standard defendants owed him. Defendants collectively moved for summary disposition under both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(0(10). The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), stating that they owed no duty to identify an addicted customer and then refuse to sell him a controlled substance. Plaintiff now appeals as of right. We affirm.

Plaintiff asserts that the pharmacists owed him the duty to refrain from dispensing to him Schedule V, nonprescription controlled substances. We disagree. The claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery. Wade v Dep’t of Corrections, 439 Mich 158; 483 NW2d 26 (1992).

This Court has previously rejected the theory that a pharmacist owes a customer a legal duty to monitor drug usage. Adkins v Mong, 168 Mich App 726; 425 NW2d 151 (1988). We find the pharmacists owed no duty to plaintiff to discover his addicted status; failing knowledge of that, they had no duty to refuse to sell to him.

Affirmed.

Michael J. Kelly, P.J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 N.W.2d 657, 200 Mich. App. 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kintigh-v-abbott-pharmacy-michctapp-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack