Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Vice Chief Justice PELANDER,
opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 Under the learned intermediary doctrine (“LID”), a manufacturer satisfies its duty to warn end users by giving appropriate warnings to the specialized class of persons who may prescribe or administer the product. We hold today that the LID generally applies to a prescription drug manufacturer. We further conclude that the LID is not displaced by the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (“UCATA”), A.R.S. §§ 12-2501 through -2509. Finally, we hold that prescription drugs are “merchandise” for purposes of the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”),…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- Coleman v. City of MesaArizona Supreme Court · 2012
- Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- Pittman v. Upjohn Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1994
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Argabright v. Rheem Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2016
- City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2017
- Mary wade/marla Paddock v. asrs/asrs BoardArizona Supreme Court · 2017
- Conklin Et Ux v. Medtronic IncArizona Supreme Court · 2018
- Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejaranoArizona Supreme Court · 2016
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.