E.R. Squibb and Sons, Inc. v. Farnes
| Decision Date | 19 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 87632,87632 |
| Citation | 697 So.2d 825 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly S348, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,995 E.R. SQUIBB AND SONS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Boyd B. FARNES, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Arthur J. England, Jr., and Alison Marie Igoe of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A., Miami, for petitioners.
Charles H. Sinclair of Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair, Coral Gables, for respondent.
We have for review Farnes v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 667 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), which conflicts with Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash Farnes.
Boyd Farnes worked at a drug rehabilitation clinic in the Florida Keys, and because his work entailed an increased risk of viral infection, the clinic offered, and he accepted, a flu shot. He was inoculated by nurse Cynthia Fox (by designation of Dr. Paul Jahnig) in October 1989, and subsequently developed a recurrence of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), a rare neurological disorder. He sued Connaught Laboratories, Inc., E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., and Henry Schein, Inc., the manufacturer and distributors of the vaccine (referred to collectively as "Connaught"), alleging that the package insert was inadequate to warn of the risk of GBS.
The jury returned a verdict for Farnes for $13,500,000, but the trial judge ordered a new trial, finding that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The district court reversed, reasoning thusly:
A trial court may not properly grant a motion for a new trial where reasonable persons cannot differ that the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Where, as in the instant case, each party had an expert witness testify at trial regarding causation, it is for the jury to resolve and weigh the conflicting testimony. Trial court judges do not have the discretion to substitute their judgment for that of the jury in regard to the conflicting testimony of expert medical witnesses.
Farnes, 667 So.2d at 1005 (citations omitted).
Farnes claims that the trial court impermissibly reweighed the evidence, and that the district court applied the proper standard for abuse of discretion. We disagree.
This Court addressed a similar scenario in Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988), wherein we described the circumstances under which a trial court "can and should" grant a new trial:
Clearly, it is a jury function to evaluate the credibility of any given witness. Moreover, the trial judge should refrain from acting as an additional juror. Nevertheless, the trial judge can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict. In making this decision, the trial judge must necessarily consider the credibility of the witnesses along with the weight of all of the other evidence. The trial judge should only intervene when the manifest weight of the evidence dictates such action. However, when a new trial is ordered, the abuse of discretion test becomes applicable on appellate review. The mere showing that there was evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
Id. at 870 (emphasis added and omitted) (citations omitted).
Due to procedural concerns and the trial court's favored vantage point, this "abuse of discretion" standard is highly deferential:
In reviewing [an order for a new trial], the appellate court should apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge abused his [or her] discretion. If reasonable [persons] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the Id. at 869-70 (emphasis added) (quoting Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145, 146 (Fla.1980)).
trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.
Applying this standard to the present case, we note that the package insert contained information about health-related risks and included the following statements:
CONTRAINDICATIONS
....
Immunization should be delayed in a patient with an active neurologic disorder, but should be considered when the disease process has been stabilized.
....
PRECAUTIONS
GENERAL
....
Prior to an injection of any vaccine, all known precautions should be taken to prevent side reactions. This includes a review of the patient's history with respect to possible sensitivity to the vaccine or similar vaccine.
....
ADVERSE REACTIONS
....
Unlike the 1976 swine influenza vaccine, subsequent vaccines prepared from other virus strains have not been associated with an increased frequency of Guillain-Barre syndrome. However, this association has been questioned by other physicians.
Connaught argues that its package insert warnings could not have been the proximate cause of Farnes's condition in light of nurse Fox's testimony which demonstrated that she understood the warnings, knew the associated risks, but failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into Farnes's medical history. In its order granting Connaught's motion for a new trial, the court focused on the language of the insert and the other evidence, but first explained that Connaught's duty was to warn the physician, not Farnes:
Prescription or ethical drugs (which includes influenza vaccine) can be administered only under the direction of a physician, and Florida law requires that the manufacturer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2002-SC-0746-CL.
...relieves the manufacturer of its duty to warn the patient regardless of how or if the physician warns the patient. E.R. Squibb & Sons v. Farnes, 697 So.2d 825, 827 (Fla.1997) ("Whether the physician in fact reads the warning, or passes its contents along to the recipient of the drug is irre......
-
Beale v. Biomet, Inc.
...law requires that the manufacturer provide an adequate warning only to the physician, or `learned intermediary.'" E.R. Squibb & Sons v. Farnes, 697 So.2d 825, 827 (Fla.1997). 2. Application of the Learned Intermediary Doctrine to Prescription Medical Devices The Florida state case law on th......
-
In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation
...physician in fact reads the warning, or passes its contents along to the recipient of the drug is irrelevant." E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Farnes, 697 So.2d 825, 827 (Fla.1997). b) Adequacy of The question of whether a prescription drug warning adequately informs prescribing physicians of t......
-
Brown v. Estate of Stuckey
...Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980); Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988); and E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Farnes, 697 So.2d 825 (Fla.1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we conclude that the district court ......
-
THE LEARNED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE IN THE DIGITAL WORLD: OFF-LABEL MARKETING AND THE REASONABLE INNOVATION RULE.
...note 33, [section] 466. (37.) Guarino v. Wyeth, LLC, 719 F.3d 1245, 1250 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Fames, 697 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla. (38.) Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. [section] 6 cmt. g (Am. L. Inst. 1998). (39.) See id. (40.) Id. (41.) Id. cmt.......