MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

Decision Date28 February 1985
Citation475 N.E.2d 65,394 Mass. 131
Parties, 53 USLW 2462 Carole D. MacDONALD et al. 1 v. ORTHO PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

John F. Keenan, Worcester, for plaintiffs.

Robert W. Sparks, of New Jersey (Edward P. Leibensperger, Boston, with him), for defendant.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and LIACOS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.

ABRAMS, Justice.

This products liability action raises the question of the extent of a drug manufacturer's duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in the use of oral contraceptives. The plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (Ortho), for injuries allegedly caused by Ortho's birth control pills, and obtained a jury verdict in their favor. The defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judge concluded that the defendant did not owe a duty to warn the plaintiffs, and entered judgment for Ortho. The plaintiffs appealed. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion and reinstate the jury verdict. 2

We summarize the facts. In September, 1973, the plaintiff Carole D. MacDonald (MacDonald), who was twenty-six years old at the time, obtained from her gynecologist a prescription for Ortho-Novum contraceptive pills, manufactured by Ortho. As required by the then effective regulations promulgated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the pill dispenser she received was labeled with a warning that "oral contraceptives are powerful and effective drugs which can cause side effects in some users and should not be used at all by some women," and that "[t]he most serious known side effect is abnormal blood clotting which can be fatal." 3 The warning also referred MacDonald to a booklet which she obtained from her gynecologist, and which was distributed by Ortho pursuant to FDA requirements. The booklet contained detailed information about the contraceptive pill, including the increased risk to pill users that vital organs such as the brain may be damaged by abnormal blood clotting. 4 The word "stroke" did not appear on the dispenser warning or in the booklet.

MacDonald's prescription for Ortho-Novum pills was renewed at subsequent annual visits to her gynecologist. The prescription was filled annually. On July 24, 1976, after approximately three years of using the pills, MacDonald suffered an occlusion of a cerebral artery by a blood clot, an injury commonly referred to as a stroke. 5 The injury caused the death of approximately twenty per cent of MacDonald's brain tissue, and left her permanently disabled. She and her husband initiated an action in the Superior Court against Ortho, seeking recovery for her personal injuries and his consequential damages and loss of consortium.

MacDonald testified that, during the time she used the pills, she was unaware that the risk of abnormal blood clotting encompassed the risk of stroke, and that she would not have used the pills had she been warned that stroke is an associated risk. 6 The case was submitted to a jury on the plaintiffs' theories that Ortho was negligent in failing to warn adequately of the dangers associated with the pills and that Ortho breached its warranty of merchantability. These two theories were treated, in effect, as a single claim of failure to warn. The jury returned a special verdict, finding no negligence or breach of warranty in the manufacture of the pills. The jury also found that Ortho adequately advised the gynecologist of the risks inherent in the pills; 7 the jury found, however, that Ortho was negligent and in breach of warranty because it failed to give MacDonald sufficient warning of such dangers. The jury further found that MacDonald's injury was caused by Ortho's pills, that the inadequacy of the warnings to MacDonald was the proximate cause of her injury, and that Ortho was liable to MacDonald and her husband. 8

After the jury verdict, the judge granted Ortho's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, concluding that, because oral contraceptives are prescription drugs, a manufacturer's duty to warn the consumer is satisfied if the manufacturer gives adequate warnings to the prescribing physician, and that the manufacturer has no duty to warn the consumer directly.

The narrow issue, on appeal, is whether, as the plaintiffs contend, a manufacturer of birth control pills owes a direct duty to the consumer to warn her of the dangers inherent in the use of the pill. We conclude that such a duty exists under the law of this Commonwealth.

1. Extent of duty to warn. Ordinarily, "a manufacturer of a product, which the manufacturer knows or should know is dangerous by nature or is in a dangerous condition," is under a duty to give warning of those dangers to "persons who it is foreseeable will come in contact with, and consequently be endangered by, that product." H.P. Hood & Sons v. Ford Motor Co., 370 Mass. 69, 75, 345 N.E.2d 683 (1976). The element of privity being long discarded, a manufacturer's warning to the immediate purchaser will not, as a general matter, discharge this duty. However, "there are limits to that principle." Carter v. Yardley & Co., 319 Mass. 92, 98, 64 N.E.2d 693 (1946). Thus, "a manufacturer may be absolved from blame because of a justified reliance upon ... a middleman." Id. at 99, 64 N.E.2d 693. This exception is applicable only in the limited instances in which the manufacturer's reliance on an intermediary is reasonable. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, comment n (1965). In such narrowly defined circumstances, the manufacturer's immunity from liability if the consumer does not receive the warning is explicable on the grounds that the intermediary's failure to warn is a superseding cause of the consumer's injury, or, alternatively, that, because it is unreasonable in such circumstances to expect the manufacturer to communicate with the consumer, the manufacturer has no duty directly to warn the consumer. 9 See generally 1A Frumer and Friedman, Products Liability §§ 8.01, 8.03 (1983 & Supp.1984); Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra at § 452, comment f.

The rule in jurisdictions that have addressed the question of the extent of a manufacturer's duty to warn in cases involving prescription drugs is that the prescribing physician acts as a "learned intermediary" between the manufacturer and the patient, and "the duty of the ethical drug manufacturer is to warn the doctor, rather than the patient, [although] the manufacturer is directly liable to the patient for a breach of such duty." McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 270 Or. 375, 386-387, 528 P.2d 522 (1974). Oral contraceptives, however, bear peculiar characteristics which warrant the imposition of a common law duty on the manufacturer to warn users directly of associated risks. Whereas a patient's involvement in decision-making concerning use of a prescription drug necessary to treat a malady is typically minimal or nonexistent, the healthy, young consumer of oral contraceptives is usually actively involved in the decision to use "the pill," as opposed to other available birth control products, and the prescribing physician is relegated to a relatively passive role. 10

Furthermore, the physician prescribing "the pill," as a matter of course, examines the patient once before prescribing an oral contraceptive and only annually thereafter. J. Willson, E. Carrington, & W. Ledger, Obstetrics and Gynecology 184 (7th ed. 1983). D. Danforth, Obstetrics and Gynecology 267 (4th ed. 1982). T. Green, Gynecology: Essentials of Clinical Practice 593 (3d ed. 1977). At her annual checkup, the patient receives a renewal prescription for a full year's supply of the pill. 11 Thus, the patient may only seldom have the opportunity to explore her questions and concerns about the medication with the prescribing physician. Even if the physician, on those occasions, were scrupulously to remind the patient of the risks attendant on continuation of the oral contraceptive, "the patient cannot be expected to remember all of the details for a protracted period of time." 35 Fed.Reg. 9002 (1970).

Last, the birth control pill is specifically subject to extensive Federal regulation. The FDA has promulgated regulations designed to ensure that the choice of "the pill" as a contraceptive method is informed by comprehensible warnings of potential side effects. 12 See notes 3 and 4 supra. These regulations, and subsequent amendments, have their basis in the FDA commissioner's finding, after hearings, that "[b]ecause oral contraceptives are ordinarily taken electively by healthy women who have available to them alternative methods of treatment, and because of the relatively high incidence of serious illnesses associated with their use, ... users of these drugs should, without exception, be furnished with written information telling them of the drug's benefits and risks." 43 Fed.Reg. 4215 (1978). The FDA also found that the facts necessary to informed decisions by women as to use of oral contraceptives are "too complex to expect the patient to remember everything told her by the physician," and that, in the absence of direct written warnings, many potential users of "the pill" do not receive the needed information "in an organized, comprehensive, understandable, and handy-for-future-reference form." 35 Fed.Reg. 9002 (1970).

The oral contraceptive thus stands apart from other prescription drugs in light of the heightened participation of patients in decisions relating to use of "the pill"; the substantial risks affiliated with the product's use; the feasibility of direct warnings by the manufacturer to the user; the limited participation of the physician (annual prescriptions); and the possibility that oral communications between physicians and consumers may be insufficient or too scanty standing alone fully to apprise consumers of the product's dangers at the time...

To continue reading

Request your trial
124 cases
  • Vitanza v. Upjohn Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 7, 2001
    ...(1) vaccine inoculations; Dams v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., supra, 399 F.2d 131; (2) oral contraceptives; MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131, 135-36, 475 N.E.2d 65, cert, denied, 474 U.S. 920,106 S. Ct. 250,88 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1985); (3) contraceptive devices; Hill v. Sear......
  • In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liab. Lit.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • August 14, 2002
    ...(1999). Massachusetts has exempted oral contraceptives from the reach of the learned intermediary doctrine. MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 394 Mass. 131, 475 N.E.2d 65 (1985). Hence, when determining the applicability of the learned intermediary doctrine with regard to this motion, choice......
  • Polt v. Sandoz, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 26, 2020
    ...in the contraceptives context because "the prescribing physician is relegated to a relatively passive role." MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 394 Mass. 131, 475 N.E.2d 65, 69 (1985).10 FDA regulations mandating direct-to-consumer warnings are not by themselves sufficient for the FDA regulat......
  • Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories, a Div. of American Cyanamid Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1991
    ...a state requirement unless such requirement is identical to the warning establishe d by the Act); MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131, 139-40, 475 N.E.2d 65, 70-71 (compliance with FDA-approved labels does not immunize manufacturers from liability despite implied goal of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Products Liability Update - May 2012 - Part 1
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 17, 2012
    ...1986) (Except in rare cases, "the adequacy of warnings is often properly left for jury determination."); MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 475 N.E.2d 65, 71 (Mass. 1985)("[W]hether a particular warning measures up to this standard is almost always an issue to be resolved by a jury..."); Gurs......
  • Current Applications & Limitations on the Learned Intermediary Rule
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 7, 2001
    ...contraceptives. See, e.g., Stephens v. G.D. Searle & Co., 602 F.Supp. 379 (E.D.Mich. 1985); MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131, 475 N.E.2d 65, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 (1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich. 1985). Relying on the Ma......
  • A Tried And True Summary Judgment Option In Pharmaceutical And Medical Device Failure To Warn Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 11, 2012
    ...1986) (Except in rare cases, "the adequacy of warnings is often properly left for jury determination."); MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 475 N.E.2d 65, 71 (Mass. 1985)("[W]hether a particular warning measures up to this standard is almost always an issue to be resolved by a jury..."); Gurs......
  • Dobbs Would Likely Have Significant Impacts On Drug And Device Companies
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 2, 2022
    ...a bit of product liability law, some good and some bad, has come out of litigation over contraception. MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 475 N.E.2d 65 (Mass. 1985), White v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 533 N.E.2d 748, 755 (Ohio 1988), and Perez v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 734 A.2d 1245 (N.J. 1999), come to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 books & journal articles
  • Products Liability and Toxic Tort Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Personal Injury Forms: Discovery & Settlement
    • May 3, 2011
    ...warnings. • Some courts determine that government approved warnings are still inadequate. See, e.g., MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. , 475 N.E.2d 65 (Mass. 1985) (compliance with FDA requirements was admissible to demonstrate lack of negligence, but was not conclusive). • Certain courts req......
  • Effective communication of warnings in the workplace: avoiding injuries in working with industrial materials.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 73 No. 1, January 2008
    • January 1, 2008
    ...relies on that advertisement. See Perez v. Wyeth Lab. Inc., 734 A.2d 1245, 1257-58 (N.J. 1999); cf. MacDonald v. Othro Pharm. Corp., 475 N.E.2d 65, 68 (Mass. 1985) (recognizing an exception to the general application of the learned intermediary doctrine for oral (122.) "[O]nly health-care p......
  • CHAPTER § 9.03 The Learned-Intermediary Doctrine
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Regulation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Title CHAPTER 9 Product Liability
    • Invalid date
    ...563, 577 (Md. 2006) (recognizing doctrine applies to pharmacist in some circumstances). Massachusetts: MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 475 N.E.2d 65, 68 (Mass. 1985). Michigan: Mowery v. Crittenton Hosp., 400 N.W.2d 633, 637 (Mich. App. 1986) (following dicta in Smith v. E.R. Squibb & Sons......
  • Renewed look at the duty to warn and affirmative defenses.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 61 No. 2, April 1994
    • April 1, 1994
    ...Wellcome Co., 856 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex.App. 1993). (74.) Humes, 792 P.2d at 1039. (75.) MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 475 N.E.2d 65 (Mass. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 (1985); Reyes v. Wyeth Labs., 498 F.2d 1264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1096 (1974). See also Davis ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT