Study Set Content:
where a nursing
student was injured after consulting and relying on
a nursing textbook that recommended hydrogen
peroxide enemas for the treatment of constipation.
The courts rejected the plaintiff’s claim that strict
liability should be applied to the publisher.
Jones v. J.B. Lippincott Co
In a German case, a misprint in a medical textbook
resulted in the injection of 25% rather than 2.5%
sodium chloride solution, injuring a patient. Again,
the court rejected strict liability for the publisher on
the basis that any medically educated person
should have noticed the ()
misprint
the plaintiff sued for
an alleged misstatement in a booklet distributed by
a Planned Parenthood organization that resulted in
a “wrongful conception.” The court found that “a
publisher cannot assume liability for all
misstatements, said or unsaid, to a potentially
unlimited public for a potentially unlimited period.”
Roman v. City of New York
two people required
liver transplants after collecting and eating
poisonous wild mushrooms. They had relied on an
Encyclopedia of Wild Mushrooms in choosing to
eat the mushrooms that caused this severe harm.
The court refused to hold the publisher liable and
found that a publisher has no duty to investigate
the accuracy of the information it publishes.
Winter v. G.R Putnam’s Sons
the
plaintiff claimed lost sales because of the
publication of erroneous information in the Merck
Index. The court considered the duty of a publisher
to a reader to publish accurate information in a
compendium. The court noted a publisher’s right to
publish without fear of liability is guaranteed by the
First Amendment and societal interest. It further
held that even if it had a duty to publish with care,
the plaintiff could not claim it suffered damages
because of reliance on this information.
Delmuth Development Corp. v. Merck & Co.,
Recently, a pharmacy journal publisher and article
author were sued for defamation by a device
manufacturer where the publication compared
and opined on the performance of devices for
compounding sterile products. The court granted
the defendants motion to dismiss stating lack of
actual malice (a necessary element of
defamation). In this ruling, the court protected the
() of scientists to report
product comparisons and the rights of publishers
regarding the peer review process and publication
of such comparisons
First Amendment rights
the plaintiff became addicted to
diazepam (Valium ®) and sued the publisher of the
Physician’s Desk Reference (The claim was based
on the absence of warnings in the PDR regarding
the addictive nature of the drug. The court
dismissed the case against the publisher.
Libertelli v. Hoffman La Roche, Inc. & Medical
Economics Co.,
Pharmacists providing DI should be aware of
computer related lawsuits that have arisen
involving defects (or bugs) in software that caused
erroneous results.
The most widely cited software related accidents
involve malfunctioning () machines where overdosages have caused
patient deaths.
computerized radiation
is the attribution of liability on one
person for the actions of another.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Through the doctrine of () a
pharmacist could become associated with
professional liability actions as part of a case
against a hospital or physician.
vicarious liability,
have been found negligent for the
negligence of nurses, therapists, and others working
under their supervision.
Physicians
If a physician requests DI, he or she would also be
held() if a patient suffers because the search
was deficient or the information incorrect.
liable
a federal court ruled
that the doctrine of informed consent required a
physician to furnish a patient contemplating
pregnancy with information concerning the
teratogenicity of the phenytoin she was taking. The
physician had a duty to provide information
reasonably available in the medical literature, but
failed to do so. Even though the physician was not
aware of the potential effects of phenytoin, studies
were reported in the medical literature. This case
represents the only case in which a lack of a
literature search resulted in liability.
Harbeson v. Parke Davis
If the physician had requested the pharmacist to
search for information about the teratogenicity of
phenytoin and no references were found because
of a faulty search, the pharmacist would() in
the negligence together with the physician. The
institution would probably also be named as a
party in such legal action.
share
Under vicarious liability, a pharmacist who has not
been personally negligent could be held
responsible for the negligence of
others
Supervision and adequate training of subordinates
(e.g., interns, pharmacy technicians, other
employees) are
essential
these
individuals can lead to liability.
Incompetence and substandard training
Methods to protect against lawsuits:
o Contracts covering financial agreements
o Adequate documentation
o Disclaimers
o Insurance
For example, a () can be placed on results
of online searches stating that the data being
provided are from a source believed to be reliable
and factually correct.
disclaimer
