AZ High Court Adopts Learned Intermediary Doctrine

In a product liability case brought by a minor who had sought medical treatment for acne, received a prescription for Medicis Pharmaceuticals’ Solodyn, took two 20-week courses of the drug as prescribed by her doctor, and developed drug-induced hepatitis and lupus, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted for the first time the learned intermediary doctrine under which a prescription drug manufacturer satisfies its duty to warn end-users by giving appropriate warnings to the prescribing doctor or other healthcare provider. The court decision also rejected a direct-to-consumer marketing exception to the doctrine.

The decision largely vacated an underlying state appeals court opinion that had held that the learned intermediary doctrine creates a blanket immunity for drug companies. It also rejected the appeals court’s determination that the learned intermediary doctrine is incompatible with the state’s Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors’ Act (UCATA). The high court held that the UCATA simply requires apportionment of damages based on degrees of fault. Under the learned intermediary doctrine, it said, a manufacturer that gives adequate warnings to the learned intermediary is simply not at fault.

The decision upheld the appeals court’s determination that prescription drugs are covered by the state’s consumer fraud act and remanded the case to the trial court for further consideration on that aspect. And it left two issues open for further litigation on remand — whether the drug information materials relied on by the plaintiff were advertising under the consumer fraud act and whether the state consumer fraud claim is preempted by federal law. The trial court also was told to determine whether Medicis gave adequate warning to the learned intermediary. If so, the Supreme Court said, the product liability claim must be summarily denied under the learned intermediary doctrine.