Legal Opinion

Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 8, 2012No. 10-0223PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Green

Under the learned intermediary doctrine, the manufacturer of a pharmaceutical product satisfies its duty to warn the end user of its product’s potential risks by providing an adequate warning to a “learned intermediary,” who then assumes the duty to pass on the necessary warnings to the end user. See, e.g., Gravis v. Parke-Davis & Co., 502 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In this case, we consider the applicability of the learned intermediary doctrine to a patient’s claims against a prescription drug manufacturer, whose product allegedly caused a serious…

2Cases cited83 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Beale v. HardyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
  3. Bradford v. VentoTexas Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Diversicare General Partner, Inc. v. RubioTexas Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Torrington Co. v. StutzmanTexas Supreme Court · 2001

78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Christopher v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (In Re Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Liab. Litig.)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
  2. In re Zimmer, Nexgen Knee Implant Prods. Liab. Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
  3. Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical CorporationArizona Supreme Court · 2016
  4. DiBartolo v. Abbott LaboratoriesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
  5. Huskey v. Ethicon, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2014

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API