Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sorenson v. Professional Compounding Pharmacists of Western Pennsylvania, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 11, 2016No. 2D15-441Published

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

  1. Ankers v. DISTRICT SCH. BD. OF PASCODistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  2. Dee v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
  3. Powers v. ThobhaniDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
  4. Estate of Sharp v. Omnicare, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
  5. Oleckna v. Daytona Discount PharmacyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015

1 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