Where a pharmacy customer is having a prescription for a dangerous drug refilled at an unreasonably faster rate than the rate prescribed, the pharmacist has a duty to cease refilling the prescription pending direct and explicit directions from the prescribing physician.
BellInd. Among them are that the customer may have developed an addiction to the drug or that the customer is improperly disposing of the drug. The Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of Hooks.
The injection of a third-party That the law recognizes a relationship between pharmacist and customer as one that gives rise to a duty in other circumstances is well-established.
We do not suggest that a pharmacy is no more than "a warehouse for drugs and that a pharmacist has no more responsibility than a shipping clerk who must dutifully and unquestionably obey the written orders of the omniscient physicians. Because the McLaughlins have put forth no such evidence, we will not depart from Ingram, supra.
Whether pharmacists may be legally obligated to refuse to fill validly-issued prescriptions; and 2.
Clearly, society has an interest in preventing the overuse and misuse of prescription drugs. Following treatment for drug addiction in earlyMcLaughlin stopped taking all prescription pain medication. A pharmacist has a duty to be alert for patent errors in prescriptions; for example, obvious lethal doses, inadequacies in the instructions, known contra-indications, or incompatible prescriptions and to take corrective measures.
We perceive three policy considerations at stake here: Our law is replete with instances where privity of contract is a relationship sufficient to form the basis for tort liability. Standard of Review This case was resolved by summary judgment for which our standard of review is well-established.
The pharmacist correctly filled the prescription. We reverse and remand. Jarvis, this Court utilized a three-part analysis to be applied when deciding whether a duty exists.
The Supreme Court of Indiana held in that a pharmacist has a duty under certain circumstances to refrain from dispensing a prescription as written by a physician.1: to occur, fall, or come between points of time or events [may be held liable even though other independent agencies between his negligence and the ultimate result "Hooks SuperxInc.
v. McLaughlin, N.E.2d ()"]. Hook's-SuperX, Inc. v. McLaughlin (), Ind.
App., N.E.2d Go to The relationship between pharmacist and customer is a direct one based upon contract and is independent of the relationship between physician and patient.
Hooks Super X Inc. v. McLauglin The Hooks SuperX, Inc. v. McLaughlin took place in the Supreme Court of Indiana on November 9, Patrick McLaughlin injured his back while working as a lumberjack in Washington State.
HOOK's-SUPERX, INC., Kathy O'Dell and Craig Merrick, Appellants-Defendants below, v. Patrick D. McLaughlin, and Michelle McLaughlin, for Themselves and As Parents, Natural Guardians, and Next Friends of Patrick Michael McLaughlin and Alicia Rose McLaughlin, Minors, Appellees-Plaintiffs below.
John C. Hooks v. McLaughlin Case Hooks v. McLaughlin Case The case of McLaughlin V. Hooks SuperX Pharmacy is basically a Case Law which refers to a common law of negligence that is developed by the courts through their written decision (Bopp & Smith, ).
It is related to the Supreme Court of Indiana in the year in which the. Tort Law: Pharmacist Malpractice Liability. Jack H. Simmons. Summary. In that case, Hooks Superx, Inc.
v. McLaughlin, the Court held that when a patient is having a prescription for a potentially addictive drug refilled at a rate that is unreasonably faster than would be anticipated, the pharmacist has a duty to exercise independent.Download