Law Alert
Our Law Alerts are published on a regular basis and contain recent Arizona cases of interest. If you would like
to subscribe to these alerts, please email markeng@jshrm.com. You can view past case alerts by vising
hp://www.jshrm.com/publicaons.aspx.
Was v. Medicis Pharmaceucal Corp.
Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, January 21, 2016
SUPREME COURT ADOPTS LEARNED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE FOR CLAIMS AGAINST PRESCRIPTION
DRUG MANUFACTURER
Was, a minor, sought medical treatment for acne and her doctor gave her a prescripon for Solodyn, a drug
manufactured by Medicis. Medicis’ full informaonal materials warned that the long-term use of minocycline,
an ingredient in Solodyn, had been associated with drug-induced lupus-like syndrome, autoimmune hepas and
vasculis, and that paents experiencing fever, rash, and other side eects should disconnue the product and
seek medical help. Was apparently did not receive this full prescribing informaon, but did receive two other
publicaons about the drug that contained some warnings. Was ulmately developed drug-induced lupus, and
sued Medicis alleging consumer fraud and product liability. She claimed Medicis misrepresented and omied facts
in the informaon she did receive, and that the drug was defecve and unreasonably dangerous.
The trial court dismissed Was’ claim pursuant to the “learned intermediary doctrine” (which the Supreme
Court had not yet addressed). To establish a product liability claim, a plain must prove that the manufacturer
had a duty to warn of the product’s dangerous propensies and that the lack of an adequate warning made the
product dangerous and unreasonably defecve. In certain contexts, the manufacturer fullls the duty by providing
adequate warning to a “learned intermediary,” who then must pass along the warning to the end user. In the
prescripon drug context, since the product can only be obtained through a prescribing physician, who is in a
posion to understand and evaluate the risks and benets, the manufacturer fullls the duty to warn by providing
adequate warnings to the physician; and the physician then has the duty to give the paent such informaon as
is deemed appropriate under the circumstances so the paent can make an informed choice. Not only does the
manufacturer lack the means to eecvely communicate with each paent, but doing so would unduly interfere
with the physician-paent relaonship.
The court of appeals reinstated Was’s case against Medicis, ruling that the learned intermediary doctrine is
inconsistent with the Uniform Contribuon Among Toreasors’ Act, and its underlying raonale “not persuasive
now.”
The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, adopted the learned intermediary doctrine (“LID”), and
held that the LID applies to prescripon drug manufacturers. The court rejected the argument that the LID “creates
a blanket immunity for pharmaceucal manufacturers,” because the manufacturer who fails to give adequate
warning to the physician can sll be liable. The court also rejected the noon that the LID is incompable with the
2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85012
P: 602-263-1700 | www.jshfirm.com
Uniform Contribuon Among Toreasors’ Act. UCATA simply requires the apporonment of damages based on
degrees of fault; and under the LID, the manufacturer that gives adequate warnings to the learned intermediary
is simply not at fault. Finally, the court rejected Was’s argument that the doctrine violates the an-abrogaon
clause in Arizona’s constuon, because (a) the LID is a common law doctrine, not a statutory limitaon and (b) the
LID does not prevent a plain from bringing a claim; it provides a means for the manufacturer to fulll its duty.
The court remanded for a determinaon of whether Medicis gave adequate warnings to the physician.
2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85012
P: 602-263-1700 | www.jshfirm.com
