Sorenson v. Professional Compounding Pharmacists of Western Pennsylvania, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLaROSE, Judge
I concur, without reservation, in the court’s affirmance of the trial court’s deci-sión to dismiss count VII of the second amended complaint. A cause of action for negligence per se cannot stand.
I respectfully dissent from the court’s holding that the second amended complaint alleged facts sufficient to impose on the Pharmacist a duty to' use due and proper care in filling a prescription for Mr. Sorenson’s ultimate use. ' Certainly, there may be cases where a compounding pharmacy owes a duty of care in filling a prescription for a patient. See McLeod v. W.S. Merrell Co., Div. of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ankers v. DISTRICT SCH. BD. OF PASCODistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
- Dee v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
- Powers v. ThobhaniDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- Estate of Sharp v. Omnicare, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
- Oleckna v. Daytona Discount PharmacyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.