Nevada Supreme Court Imposes Duty to Warn on Pharmacists


On November 23, 2011, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Klasch v. Walgreen Co., Nev. No. 54805, 1123(11), that a pharmacist who has knowledge that a patient may be at risk with respect to specific prescription drugs may be liable for failing to warn the patient or prescribing physician. In doing so, the court ruled that Nevada-licensed pharmacists have a duty to exercise reasonable care by warning patients or the prescribing physicians of a patient on the specific risks associated with that drug product. The Nevada court rejected the idea that the learned intermediary doctrine under which the physician, and not the pharmacist, had the legal obligation to warn patients about general drug risks relieved a pharmacist of the obligation to warn a physician or the patient related to a specific risk. The Nevada Supreme Court followed a March 2002 ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 766 N.E.2d 1118 (Ill. 2002).

Please see article below.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Health Updates, Personal Injury Updates, Products Liability Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Duane Morris LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »