State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Karl
Decision Date | 27 June 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 33211.,33211. |
Citation | 647 S.E.2d 899 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE EX REL. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., a Foreign Corporation and a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Petitioners, v. The Honorable Mark A. KARL, Judge of the Circuit Court of Marshall County, Daniel W. Wilson, M.D., and Estate of Nancy J. Gellner, by Gregory A. Gellner, Executor, Respondents. |
1. " Syllabus point 1, State ex rel. Caton v. Sanders, 215 W.Va. 755, 601 S.E.2d 75 (2004).
2. " Syllabus point 2, State ex rel. Caton v. Sanders, 215 W.Va. 755, 601 S.E.2d 75 (2004).
3. Under West Virginia products liability law, manufacturers of prescription drugs are subject to the same duty to warn consumers about the risks of their products as other manufacturers. We decline to adopt the learned intermediary exception to this general rule.
Stephen B. Farmer, G. Kenneth Robertson, Farmer, Cline & Campbell, PLLC, Charleston, for the Petitioners.
Robert P. Fitzsimmons, Fitzsimmons Law Offices, Gregory A. Gellner, Gellner Law Offices, Wheeling, for the Respondent, Estate of Nancy J. Gellner.
D.C. Offutt, Jr., Stephen S. Burchett, Jody M. Offutt, Randall L. Saunders, Offutt, Fisher & Nord, Huntington, Patrick S. Casey, Burns, White & Hickton, Wheeling, for the Respondent, Daniel W. Wilson, M.D.
In this action invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court in prohibition, a drug manufacturer asks this Court to adopt the learned intermediary doctrine as an exception to the general duty of manufacturers to warn consumers of the dangerous propensities of their products.1 After thorough consideration of the learned intermediary doctrine in light of the current state of the prescription drug industry and physician/patient relationships, we decline to adopt this doctrine. Accordingly, the requested writ of prohibition is denied.
This case is before this Court on a petition for writ of prohibition. Accordingly, the facts have not been conclusively determined below. Nevertheless, it appears to be undisputed that on May 19, 1999, Mrs. Nancy J. Gellner was prescribed the drug Propulsid®2 by her primary care physician, Daniel J. Wilson, M.D., a respondent to this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Dr. Wilson"). Petitioner Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of petitioner Johnson & Johnson, Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Janssen"). Propulsid® was manufactured and distributed by Janssen. In addition to prescribing Propulsid®, Dr. Wilson also provided Mrs. Gellner with samples of the prescription drug, which samples had been provided to Dr. Wilson by representatives of Janssen. Mrs. Gellner died suddenly on the third day after she began taking Propulsid®.3
On May 17, 2001, Mrs. Gellner's estate (hereinafter referred to as "the Estate"), a respondent herein, filed a products liability/medical malpractice action against Janssen and Dr. Wilson in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia.4 On August 26, 2004, Janssen filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that, under the learned intermediary doctrine, it had fulfilled its duty to warn by providing warnings regarding Propulsid® to Dr. Wilson. Apparently, the circuit court orally denied the motion for summary judgment on March 28, 2005, on the ground that disputed questions of fact remained pending in the case.5 Thereafter, Janssen, again relying on the learned intermediary doctrine, filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument by the Estate suggesting that Janssen had a duty to provide any warnings regarding Propulsid® to Mrs. Gellner personally. Observing that this Court has not recognized the doctrine of the learned intermediary, the circuit court denied Janssen's motion by order entered on June 13, 2006. Janssen filed a petition for writ of prohibition in this Court seeking to prohibit enforcement of the circuit court's June 13, 2006, order. On October 26, 2006, this Court granted a rule to show cause. We now deny the writ.
This case is before this Court upon Janssen's petition for a writ of prohibition. When asked to prevent a lower court from enforcing an order it has entered, this Court reviews the order to determine whether the lower court has committed error by so ruling. For an award of the extraordinary remedy of prohibition to be proper in a particular case, however, the allegedly improper actions of the lower court must constitute more than a simple abuse of discretion. " Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Caton v. Sanders, 215 W.Va. 755, 601 S.E.2d 75 (2004).
The parties to this proceeding do not claim that the lower court lacked jurisdiction when it entered its order of June 13, 2006. Rather, Janssen contends that the lower court exceeded its legitimate powers by refusing to apply the learned intermediary doctrine to rule in its favor. When it is claimed that the lower court has acted beyond its legitimate powers, we consider many factors to ascertain whether granting extraordinary relief through prohibition is warranted.
Syllabus point 4, State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996).
Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Caton v. Sanders, 215 W.Va. 755, 601 S.E.2d 75. See also Syl. pt. 3, id., () . We will now proceed to apply this standard to review the lower court's ruling.
The issue raised in this original jurisdiction action is one of first impression. In order to decide whether prohibition should lie in this case to prohibit the circuit court from refusing to apply the learned intermediary doctrine, we must examine that doctrine and determine whether it should be adopted into the common law of West Virginia.
"The learned intermediary doctrine provides an exception to the general rule imposing a duty on manufacturers to warn consumers about the risks of their products." In re Norplant Contraceptive Prods. Liab. Litig., 215 F.Supp.2d 795, 803 (E.D.Tex.2002) (citing Reyes v. Wyeth Labs., 498 F.2d 1264, 1276 (5th Cir.1974); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- City of Charleston v. Joint Comm'n
- Nowell v. Medtronic Inc.
-
State v. Pennington
... ... ferreting out crime," Johnson v. United States , ... supra , 333 U.S. at 14, 68 S.Ct., at 369, ... State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. McGraw , 237 W.Va ... 573, 595, 788 S.E.2d 319, ... See also State ex ... rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. Karl , 20 W.Va. 463, ... 477 n.18, 647 S.E.2d 899, 913 n.18 (2007) ... ...
-
Rimbert v. Eli Lilly and Co.
...v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 86 N.M. 763, 764, 527 P.2d 1075, 1076 (Ct.App.1974). See Tr. at 6:9-22 (Court & See). Eli Lilly stated that State ex rel. Johnson and Johnson Corp. v. Karl, 220 W.Va. 463, 647 S.E.2d 899 (2007), was the only case of which it was aware that completely rejected the lear......
-
One Step Closer To Having Unanimity On The Learned Intermediary Doctrine
...it to the plaintiff if additional warnings had been provided. The first worst case, State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. Karl, 647 S.E.2d 899 (W. Va. 2007), drew a fair amount of our ire. It also touched off a few dives into the learned intermediary doctrine and where it stood across th......
-
Breaking News High Wattage Reasoning Arizona Adopts Learned Intermediary
...the plaintiff in Watts first urged West Virginia's rejection of the LID in State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. Karl, 647 S.E.2d 899 (W. Va. 2007), with her fallback position being the DTC advertising exception allowed in Perez v. Wyeth Laboratories Inc., 734 A.2d 1245, 1247, 1256 (......
-
Effective communication of warnings in the workplace: avoiding injuries in working with industrial materials.
...the only state to expressly decline adoption of the learned intermediary doctrine. See State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. Karl, 647 S.E.2d 899, 914 (W. Va. 2007). New Jersey does not apply the learned intermediary doctrine where the prescription drug manufacturer attempts to adver......
-
CHAPTER § 9.03 The Learned-Intermediary Doctrine
...exception for drugs marketed directly to consumers). [120] See infra § 9.03[3].[121] State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. Karl, 647 S.E.2d 899, 913 (W. Va. 2007).[122] W. Va. Code 55-7-30 (abrogatingJ.C. by & through Michelle C. v. Pfizer, Inc., 814 S.E.2d 234, 238 n.9 (W. Va. 2018)).[1......
-
Physician Conflicts of Interest in Court: Beyond the Independent Physician Litigation Heuristic
...in all cases be directly informed of the benefits and risks of drugs and devices. See State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. Karl, 647 S.E.2d 899, 912-13 (W. Va. 2007) (relying heavily on the existence and increasing prevalence of direct-to-consumer advertising in deciding not to adopt th......
-
THE LEARNED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE IN THE DIGITAL WORLD: OFF-LABEL MARKETING AND THE REASONABLE INNOVATION RULE.
...Columbia, and Puerto Rico all had either applied or recognized the LID without any relevant exceptions for Norplant. Id. at 806. (102.) 647 S.E.2d 899 (W. Va. (103.) Id. at 901. (104.) Id. at 914. (105.) W. Va. Code [section] 55-7-30 (2016); J.C. ex rel. Michelle C. v. Pfizer, Inc., 814 S.E......