1 OFF-LABEL USE AND THE MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD UNDER MINNESOTA LAW Cynthia A. Moyer I. INTRODUCTION II. WHAT IS OFF-LABEL USE? III. THE STATE OF THE LAW IN MINNESOTA IV. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION Medicare 1 is about to begin offering prescription drug benefits. 2 Providing drug benefits through the Medicare program is a noted achievement that may help ease the financial pressures faced by millions of older Americans. It is noteworthy that Medicare will include coverage for off-label use 3 of some prescription drugs. 4 Prescriptions for off-label use of drugs continue to climb, 5 while concerns about the safety of off-label use Cynthia A. Moyer is a 1990 graduate of Harvard Law School and a shareholder with the Minneapolis law firm of Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., where she practices in the business litigation group, focusing on health law and intellectual property. 1. Medicare is a social health insurance program that provides basic hospital coverage for Americans sixty-five years of age or older. Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395(c) (2000). It also provides coverage for some people under age sixty-five with disabilities and for people with end-stage renal disease. Id. 2. On December 8, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. 1395w-101. The prescription drug benefit program will become available to beneficiaries beginning in January U.S.C. 1395w-101(a)(2). 3. Off-label use refers to a use other than the FDA-approved uses. See Kaspar J. Stoffelmayr, Comment, Products Liability and Off-Label Uses of Prescription Drugs, 63 U. CHI. L. REV. 275, (1996). 4. See Medicare Program; Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, 69 Fed. Reg. 46,632 (proposed Aug. 3, 2004) (describing the rules proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to implement the new Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit). 5. See Paul D. Rheingold & David B. Rheingold, Offense or Defense? Managing 927
2 928 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:3 are also on the rise. 6 Concerns regarding off-label use include fears about untested prescribing practices 7 and patients agreeing to a suggested course of treatment, at least in part, because the risks are not known by the physician or the patient. 8 Concerns also exist regarding the pharmaceutical companies promotion of off-label use as a means to increase sales while side stepping the onerous FDA approval process. 9 Such promotion encourages the prescription of drugs for uses that have not undergone rigorous study and may increase risk to patients. Who decides whether a drug can be used off-label and under what circumstances? If a physician decides to prescribe a drug offlabel, what legal issues, if any, should the physician be aware of? the Off-Label Use Claim, 37 TRIAL 52, 52 (2001) (observing that there has been an increase in off-label claims by injured plaintiffs because off-label use of medical products is a growing practice); see also Veronica Henry, Off-Label Prescribing Legal Implications, 20 J. LEGAL MED. 365, 365 (1999) ( According to some estimates, almost half the United States population currently may be taking a medication prescribed for an unapproved reason. ). 6. See Alison Young & Chris Adams, Off-label Drugs Take Their Toll, KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS, Nov. 2, 2003, at news/special_packages/riskyrx/ htm (last visited Jan. 21, 2005). 7. See James M. Beck & Elizabeth D. Azari, FDA, Off-Label Use, and Informed Consent: Debunking Myths and Misconceptions, 53 FOOD & DRUG L.J. 71, 72 (1998). In discussing the fen/phen controversy of the late 1990s, the authors noted: [T]he popular media discovered that the commonly prescribed combination of fenfluramine and phentermine was an off-label use. Both drugs had been approved separately for labeling and marketing for short-term use in weight reduction, but they often had been prescribed together for not only short-term, but long-term weight-loss treatment. Millions of people used one or more of the drugs. Id. at Young & Adams, supra note 6. A six month Knight Ridder investigation has found that patients nationwide are being injured and killed as doctors routinely prescribe drugs in ways the FDA never certified as safe and effective. Id. 9. Stoffelmayr, supra note 3, at 277. Manufacturers have a strong and obvious incentive to encourage off-label use since such uses increase overall sales. Id. at The author explained: [D]espite the FDA restrictions, manufacturers have been very successful at promoting off-label uses. Among the most common methods are funding research into off-label drug uses, sponsoring continuing education programs and symposia in which ostensibly independent researchers discuss off-label uses, distributing reprints of journal articles on off-label uses, and purchasing special journal supplements that feature articles about off-label uses. Id. at 280; see also Rheingold & Rheingold, supra note 5, at 53 (arguing [o]ff-label use is a fiscal boon to manufacturers.... Fen-phen is perhaps the best example of this. Sales of two drugs that had virtually no market when prescribed under their FDA approval suddenly skyrocketed when doctors began to prescribe them together and for a long period. ).
3 2005] OFF-LABEL USE AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 929 With the increased practice of prescribing drugs for off-label use, coupled with a somewhat dated and incomplete medical negligence standard in Minnesota, the intersection of the off-label use doctrine with Minnesota s medical negligence standard is ripe for review. This article examines the off-label use doctrine and the medical negligence standard under Minnesota law. First, the article examines what the phrase off-label use means. 10 Next, the article explores the cases that have arisen in Minnesota which address medical malpractice claims arising, at least in part, because of off-label uses. 11 Finally, the article concludes with the author s observations about whether off-label use should be a cause for concern. 12 In part, the author considers whether increased offlabel use presents new legal issues for physicians, patients, and attorneys. 13 II. WHAT IS OFF-LABEL USE? In 1962, Congress amended the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act 14 (the Act) to give the FDA the power to assess the safety and effectiveness of all drugs before they could be sold in the United States. 15 The Drug Amendments of 1962 constitute a comprehensive regulatory scheme that addresses the manufacturing and marketing of drugs for human use. 16 Under the Act, before a drug can be marketed it must receive FDA approval. 17 The FDA will not grant approval unless a drug is shown to be safe and effective. 18 Moreover, prior to marketing, the FDA reviews the package literature. 19 The package literature, commonly 10. See infra Part II. This article addresses off-label use only in the context of prescription drugs. The phrase is also used in connection with medical devices, which is a use not addressed in this article. 11. See infra Part III. 12. See infra Part IV. 13. See id U.S.C (2000). 15. See recitation of legislative history in 21 U.S.C. 301 (adding sections , and amending sections 321, 331, 332, 348, 351, 353, 355, 357, 372, 374, 376, and 381 (collectively referred to as the Drug Amendments of 1962 )). 16. Id U.S.C. 355(a) (2000). For a description of the FDA approval process for new drugs, see David A. Kessler, The Regulation of Investigational Drugs, 320 NEW ENG. J. MED. 281, (1989) U.S.C. 355(d). 19. See 21 C.F.R , (2004).
4 930 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:3 referred to as the package insert, may only refer to the approved uses for the drug. 20 The complex and detailed regulatory scheme used by the FDA to assess whether, and under what circumstances, a drug can be marketed creates the public perception that drugs with FDA approval are tested and safe for all circumstances in which they are used. Yet the FDA has always tried to steer clear of interfering with the practice of medicine. Thus, the FDA openly acknowledges that the FD&C Act does not limit the manner in which a physician may use an approved drug. 21 The FDA does not exercise any oversight over the practice of medicine. 22 The presence of the complex and lengthy regulatory process required to bring a new drug to market, oversight by the FDA, and the FDA s hands-off approach to the practice of medicine gives rise to a fact that is little known to the public at large. Namely, once a drug receives FDA approval, physicians may prescribe that drug for any purpose, including, but not limited to, the FDA approved use. 23 Prescribing a drug for a use other than the FDA approved use is commonly referred to as off-label 24 or unlabeled 25 use. Offlabel use of an FDA approved product is defined as a specific use for which that product has not been approved. 26 Off-label use can take several forms, including prescribing an approved drug to treat a disease or condition that is not indicated on the manufacturer s label, treating the indicated disease but varying the approved dosage, or prescribing the drug to a patient population other than the intended patient population. 27 Off-label use is extremely common, with one study suggesting that most hospital patients receive at least one drug off-label, 28 and 20. The package insert must contain certain information intended to ensure safe and effective use of the drug, including information relating to the following topics: description; clinical pharmacology; indications and usage; contraindications; warnings; precautions; adverse reactions; drug abuse and dependence; over-dosage; dosage and administration; how supplied; and date of most recent revision to the labeling. 21 C.F.R FOOD & DRUG BULL. 3, 5 (1982). 22. Id. 23. Id. 24. William L. Christopher, Off-Label Drug Prescription: Filling the Regulatory Vacuum, 48 FOOD & DRUG L.J. 247, 248 (1993) FOOD & DRUG BULL., supra note 21, at In re Kessler, 100 F.3d 1015, 1015 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1997). 27. Christopher, supra note 24, at Scott Esposito, Off-Label Prescribing of Drugs Calls FDA Role Into Question, PITTSBURGH TRIB.-REV., Nov. 25, 2000 (citing Alex Tabarrok, Assessing the FDA via
5 2005] OFF-LABEL USE AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 931 that the off-label use of some popular medications constitutes more than half of all sales. 29 For some drugs, off-label uses account for ninety percent of all prescriptions sold for the drug. 30 In addition to being extremely common, the practice of off-label prescribing appears to be increasing. 31 At least one study found that off-label prescriptions nearly doubled from 1998 to The rise in offlabel prescription drug use will most likely continue, particularly in light of the change in Medicare law. 33 Is increased off-label use a cause for concern? Not necessarily. Whether off-label use implies increased risk depends on the circumstances. As the FDA explained, the term unapproved uses is, to some extent, misleading. It includes a variety of situations ranging from unstudied to thoroughly investigated drug uses. 34 For those situations where off-label use has been thoroughly investigated, it is accepted practice, and may even constitute malpractice if an off-label use is not offered to patients. 35 In addition, off-label drug use plays a significant role in advances in drug therapy and medical care. 36 In other cases, even if an off-label use is not dangerous, such use may not be ethically or politically appropriate. 37 Because an FDA-approved drug can be prescribed for any purpose, this article examines the constraints on physician off-label prescribing practices under the Minnesota malpractice doctrine; specifically, as it has evolved in cases concerning prescription drugs. the Anomaly of Off-Label Drug Prescribing, THE INDEP. REV., Summer 2000), at (last visited Jan. 21, 2005). 29. Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, Unapproved Drug Uses Study, Nov (showing off-label prescriptions for the following drugs constituted more than half of all prescriptions: Seroquel, Risperdal, Neurontin, Topamax, Biaxin XL, Trazodone HCI, Bextra, and Avelox), at 30. Chris Adams & Alison Young, FDA Oversight of Off-Label Drug Use Wanes, KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS, Nov. 4, 2003, at krwashington/news/special_packages/riskyrx/ htm. 31. Id. 32. Id. 33. See supra note 4 and accompanying text FOOD & DRUG BULL. 4, 5 (April 1982). 35. Stoffelmayr, supra note 3, at Henry, supra note 5, at 383 (noting that [t]he regulatory process has not been able to keep pace with innovation and [i]n many cases, off-label prescribing is the standard of care. ). 37. Christopher, supra note 24, at 249.
6 932 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:3 III. THE STATE OF THE LAW IN MINNESOTA In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must offer expert testimony to establish the standard of care and the defendant s departure from it. 38 If the case concerns allegations of improper use of prescription drugs, is the fact that a physician deviated from the package insert relevant to establishing the standard of care? The answer under Minnesota law as it currently stands is possibly. 39 The Minnesota Civil Jury Instruction Guides includes a proposed jury instruction for claims of negligence by medical professionals resulting from departures from drug manufacturers instructions. 40 The proposed jury instruction sets forth the standard for negligence, stating: A (doctor) (dentist) is negligent if: 1. The drug manufacturer gave clear and explicit recommendations (and) (or) instructions for use of the drug, and; 2. The (doctor) (dentist) did not follow these recommendations (and) (or) instructions. The (doctor) (dentist) is negligent unless a reasonable (doctor) (dentist) would not have followed these recommendations (and) (or) instructions under the circumstances. 41 Three cases form the basis for this proposed jury instruction and each case is discussed below. 42 In 1970, in Mulder v. Parke Davis & Co., the Minnesota Supreme Court announced its rule with regard to the circumstances under which off-label use constitutes medical negligence. 43 The court initially described its rule as follows: Where the dosage is prescribed by the manufacturer, testimony of the physician s failure to adhere to its recommendation is sufficient evidence to require him to explain the reason for his deviation. 38. See Todd v. Eitel Hosp., 306 Minn. 254, 257, 237 N.W.2d 357, 359 (1975). 39. See infra Part IV. 40. See MINN. DIST. JUDGES ASS N, MINN. PRACTICE SERIES, 4A JURY INSTRUCTION GUIDES CIVIL, CIVJIG 80.16, (4th ed. 1999). 41. Id. 42. The three cases are: Reinhardt v. Colton, 337 N.W.2d 88 (Minn. 1983); Lhotka v. Larson, 307 Minn. 121, 238 N.W.2d 870 (1976); Mulder v. Parke Davis & Co., 288 Minn. 332, 181 N.W.2d 882 (1970) Minn. 332, 181 N.W.2d 882.
7 2005] OFF-LABEL USE AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 933 This is particularly true where the manufacturer s warning puts the doctor on notice of potentially lethal effects. 44 Two months later, in response to a petition for rehearing by the Minnesota State Medical Association as amicus curiae, the court expanded its rule: Where a drug manufacturer recommends to the medical profession (1) the conditions under which its drug should be prescribed; (2) the disorders it is designed to relieve; (3) the precautionary measures which should be observed; and (4) warns of the dangers that are inherent in its use, a doctor s deviation from such recommendations is prima facie evidence of negligence if there is competent medical testimony that his patient s injury or death resulted from the doctor s failure to adhere to the recommendations. 45 The court also made clear that when such circumstances exist it is incumbent on the doctor to disclose his reasons for departing from the procedures recommended by the manufacturer. 46 The court acknowledged that it would ordinarily be a jury question whether the physician justified or excused his deviation from the manufacturer guidance. 47 The Minnesota Supreme Court next addressed the issue in The court in Lhotka v. Larson considered whether a socalled Mulder instruction was warranted where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant physician knowingly deviated from the manufacturers instructions and recommendations on the use of drugs which were administered in this case. 49 By the slimmest of margins the court disagreed and, in the process, narrowed the Mulder holding. 50 The court concluded that a Mulder instruction was not appropriate because the evidence did not establish a clear deviation from the manufacturers instructions, 51 and the drug 44. Id. at 339, 181 N.W.2d at 887 (citing Magee v. Wyeth Labs. Inc., 29 Cal. Rptr. 322, 328 (1963)). 45. Id at , 181 N.W.2d at Id. at 340, 181 N.W.2d at Id. 48. See Lhotka v. Larson, 307 Minn. 121, 238 N.W.2d 870 (1976). 49. Id. at 125, 238 N.W.2d at Chief Justice Sheran wrote the majority opinion, which three other justices joined. Id. at 121, 238 N.W.2d at 870. Four justices, Chanak, joined by Kelly, Todd, and Scott, dissented, and one justice, Otis took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Id. at 133, 238 N.W.2d at Id. at 127, 238 N.W.2d at 874 (stating [w]e hold on these facts there was
8 934 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:3 manufacturers recommendations were not sufficiently clear and explicit to support the requested instruction. 52 The court also noted that [u]nderlying Mulder is the self-evident premise that deviation from a manufacturer s recommendations constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence only when the conduct complained of deviates from standards which are clear and explicit. 53 As the Lhotka dissent makes clear, however, the majority s holding rests on a thin reed. 54 At issue in the case were the drugs given to a woman in premature labor. 55 It was undisputed that the manufacturer s insert for one of the drugs explicitly stated that fetal immaturity constitutes a relative contraindication for administration... by injection. 56 The manufacturer s insert with regard to oral administration (which is how the drug was administered to the plaintiff) contained no explicit contraindication. 57 The dissent noted that the chemical composition, whether administered orally or by injection, was the same and, thus, the effect of the drug was essentially the same. 58 The dissent thus took the position that the jury should have been given a Mulder instruction, contingent upon a prior jury finding that the manufacturer s recommendations were sufficiently clear to put a reasonably prudent physician on notice that oral administration was also contraindicated. 59 The majority, however, concluded that the manufacturer s recommendations were not clear as to oral administration and, therefore, a Mulder instruction was not appropriate. 60 In 1983, the Minnesota Supreme Court further refined the circumstances in which a so-called Mulder instruction might be no basis in the manufacturers instructions for a finding that the Doctors Larson failed to observe clear and explicit recommendations with respect to [the medications at issue]. ). 52. Id. at 125, 238 N.W.2d at Id. at 128 n.14, 238 N.W.2d at 875 n.14 (emphasis added). 54. See id. at , 238 N.W.2d at See id. at 123, 238 N.W.2d at 872 (noting that physician prescribed the oral administration of three grains of Seconal, a brand of sodium secobarbital used as a sedative to ease apprehension). 56. Id. at 131, 238 N.W.2d at 877 (quoting from the plaintiffs Exhibit K). 57. Id. 58. Id. at 132, 238 N.W.2d at 877. The only difference in terms of effects was that the drug would metabolize more slowly when administered orally. Id. 59. Id. 60. Id. at 126, 238 N.W.2d at 874.
9 2005] OFF-LABEL USE AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 935 warranted in the medical malpractice case Reinhardt v. Colton. 61 In Reinhardt, the court considered whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for the defendants in connection with the plaintiff s claim of negligent treatment. 62 In considering that issue, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed two issues concerning Mulder. First, the court observed that a Mulder instruction is appropriate only if there is competent medical testimony that [the] patient s injury or death resulted from the doctor s failure to adhere to the recommendations. 63 Thus, in Reinhardt, although the plaintiff introduced evidence that the physician did not conduct a direct platelet count as recommended in the package insert, but rather only estimated blood platelets, the plaintiff failed to introduce evidence that the physician s failure to take a direct platelet count was the direct cause of the plaintiff s injuries. 64 Second, the court in Reinhardt questioned, but did not resolve, the issue of whether the type of off-label use was relevant to the analysis of whether a Mulder instruction is appropriate. 65 The Reinhardt court observed that in Mulder it described the type of package insert which can serve as a standard of care in this context as one which recommends: (1) the conditions under which its drug should be prescribed; (2) the disorders it is designed to relieve; (3) the precautionary measures which should be observed; and [which] (4) warns of the dangers which are inherent in its use. 66 The court then noted that unlike the off-label use in Mulder, N.W.2d 88 (Minn. 1983). 62. Id. at Id. at 95 (quoting Mulder v. Parke Davis & Co., 288 Minn. 332, 340, 181 N.W.2d 882, 877 (1970)). 64. Id. 65. Id. at 95 n.4. The court explained: The Food and Drug Administration did not approve the use of [the drug at issue] for rheumatoid arthritis until late 1978, and the package inserts admitted as evidence at trial and applicable to the treatment period (February 1977 to August 1977) do not list rheumatoid arthritis as an approved indication. An issue therefore arises regarding whether the package inserts introduced at trial can serve as a standard of care under the criteria established in Mulder. However,... we need not address this issue. Id. 66. Id. (quoting Mulder, 288 Minn. at 339, 181 N.W.2d at 877).
10 936 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:3 the off-label use at issue in Reinhardt was not a change in the recommended dosage. 67 Instead, the physician defendant in Reinhardt had prescribed a drug to treat an indication for which the drug was not approved. 68 As a result, the package inserts that were used as evidence at trial made no mention of the plaintiff s ailment (the second factor identified in Mulder), thus raising the question of whether the package inserts were relevant. 69 The court acknowledged that its holding on the evidentiary issue concerning causation eliminated the need to substantively address this second issue and so did not affirmatively resolve it. 70 The Reinhardt decision certainly leaves open the question of whether off-label use to treat a different ailment even comes under the scope of Mulder. 71 IV. CONCLUSION In light of the dramatic increase in off-label use, where are physicians and patients left with respect to off-label use? Despite the fact that Minnesota case law addressing issues of medical negligence in the context of off-label use is somewhat wellentrenched, 72 should physicians be concerned about a possible increase in exposure for off-label use? Should patients be worried? The answer to both physician and patient fears is probably not. Under Minnesota law as it currently stands, a physician is held to the standard of care outlined in the manufacturer s insert only when the packaging insert is explicit, the physician clearly deviated from the manufacturer s recommendations or instructions, and the physician s deviation caused harm to the patient. 73 It is an open question whether Mulder is applicable only in dosage cases or whether it would also apply in cases involving prescriptions for indications not addressed in the manufacturer s insert, which is a common form of off-label use, or for use in patient populations other than those recommended by the manufacturer. The suggestion in Reinhardt is that a Mulder instruction could be 67. Compare Reinhardt, 337 N.W.2d at 95 n.4, with Mulder, 288 Minn. at 335, 181 N.W.2d at Reinhardt, 337 N.W.2d at 95 n Id. 70. Id. 71. Id. 72. The three cases controlling medical negligence in Minnesota in the context of off-label prescription drug use were decided in 1983, 1976, and Reinhardt, 337 N.W.2d at 95.
11 2005] OFF-LABEL USE AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 937 inappropriate in cases involving off-label use for a different indication. 74 As a result, the pronouncement in Mulder, which has been rejected by some courts, 75 has been tempered by the subsequent decisions into a rule that holds physicians to a reasonable standard. 76 The remaining legal questions are (1) whether Mulder applies to situations where a physician prescribes a drug to a patient outside of the manufacturer-defined patient populations, and (2) whether Mulder applies to situations where a physician prescribes a drug to treat a condition not referenced in the package insert. The Minnesota Supreme Court has yet to decide a case that directly answers these questions. Until the Minnesota Supreme Court hears a case directly on point, it is unclear where the law stands. By voicing concerns about the evidentiary value of the package insert, the Reinhardt court hinted that it might resolve the question about off-label use for treatment of an indication not mentioned on the package insert by concluding that the insert does not establish a standard of care in this type of case. The court has provided no similar suggestion for off-label use in populations other than the manufacturer-defined patient group. Attorneys are likely to make arguments for and against extending Mulder in both types of off-label use cases. It is unclear whether Minnesota will encounter a significant legal change as a result of increased off-label use. Nevertheless, until the Minnesota Supreme Court addresses the law, or the state legislature initiates a change, the areas of uncharted waters for physicians are instances of off-label use for treatment of an indication other than those listed on the package insert, and 74. Id. at 95 n See Ramon v. Farr, 770 P.2d 131, 135 (Utah 1989). The Ramon court noted that there is a split among authorities. Id. at 134 (stating [w]e recognize that the courts appear to be split on whether the recommendations contained in a package insert are prima facie evidence of the standard of care. ). The Ramon court expressly declined to follow Mulder, observing that only a few other states have followed Mulder, and the Minnesota courts have since retreated somewhat from the Mulder standard. Id. (citing Lhotka v. Larson, 307 Minn. 121, , 238 N.W.2d 870, 877 (1976)). The Ramon court adopted a rule that a manufacturer s recommendations are some evidence that the finder of fact may consider along with expert testimony on the standard of care. Id. at 135 (citing Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 317 P.2d 170, 180 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)). 76. Reinhardt, 337 N.W.2d at 95.
12 938 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:3 prescriptions given to patients outside the manufacturer-defined patient populations. Today, Minnesota medical negligence law, although well-established, remains incomplete. Should patients be concerned about the rise in the use of offlabel prescriptions coupled with a Mulder holding that has been softened over the years? No. Physicians actions are, and will likely continue to be, judged against a reasonable standard of care that serves to constrain physicians from straying beyond the bounds of reasonableness. In addition, patients have and continue to use tools at their disposal (both malpractice actions and complaints to the Board of Medical Practice 77 ) to constrain prescribing practices. Patients also have the right to know the risks involved in recommended courses of treatment 78 and should exercise that right by asking questions about the medications they are being given. 77. See Kollmorgen v. State Bd. of Med. Exam rs, 416 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (upholding a disciplinary order of the State Board of Medical Examiners resulting from an over-prescription of medication that deviated from the manufacturer s recommendation). 78. See MINN. STAT , subd. 9 (2004) (Patient s Bill of Rights). Patients and residents shall be given by their physicians complete and current information concerning their diagnosis, treatment, alternatives, risks, and prognosis as required by the physician s legal duty to disclose. Id.
Off-Label This is the third and final piece to our three-part series on off-label drug use Physicians liability for off-label prescriptions James B. Riley, Jr. P. Aaron Basilius It is estimated that between
The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu Ohio State Law Journal (Moritz College of Law) Ohio State Law Journal: Volume 23, Issue 4 (1962) 1962 One Year Malpractice Statute of Limitations Held
Working with the Physician s Counsel in Defending Off-Label Use Litigation By Gerald P. Schneeweis Morris Polich & Purdy LLP Working with the Physician s Counsel in Defending Off-Label Use Litigation By
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
Page 1 of 7 809.66 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - HEALTH CARE PROVIDER'S LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF NON-EMPLOYEE AGENTS - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR - APPARENT AGENCY. 1 NOTE WELL: This instruction previously was labeled N.C.P.I.
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL No. 06-3814 EMRETTA HINMAN; WILLIAM HINMAN, v. M.D. JOSEPH DELLO RUSSO; NEW JERSEY EYE CENTER; JOHN DOES 1-10; ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10
DUNCAN V. SCOTTSDALE MEDICAL IMAGING, LTD.: RESTORING A PATIENT S RIGHT TO SUE FOR BATTERY Rachel L. Alpers The law protects the doctor-patient relationship for the purpose of furthering open communication,
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 95-CC-1456 JULIA MCCARTHY, WIFE OF JAMES MCCARTHY Versus WILLIAM BERMAN, D.C., NATIONAL CHIROPRACTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY WRIT OF CERTIORARI
LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO By Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1 I. OVERVIEW OF PUERTO RICO LEGAL SYSTEM A. Three branches of government B. Judicial Branch 1. Supreme
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM Carl Tobias* In late July 2002, a special session of the Nevada Legislature passed medical malpractice reform legislation. 1 The expressly-stated
Interplay Between FDA Advertising and Promotion Enforcement Activities, Product Liability, and Consumer Fraud Litigation Leslie M. Tector Quarles & Brady LLP September 30, 2014 Objectives Which federal
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health A Permanent Solution to the SGR: The Time Is Now January 21 & 22, 2015 Submitted Testimony regarding Standards of Care
Watson v. Price NO. COA10-1112 (Filed 19 April 2011) Medical Malpractice Rule 9(j) order extending statute of limitations not effective not filed An order under N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 9(j) extending the statute
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1489 Barry H. Nash, Appellant, vs. James D. Gurovitsch,
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) SIMMONS V. PRECAST HAULERS NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION WALTER R. COX, SR. VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT BRUCE P. BORDLEE, M.D., ET AL. 06-1638 ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 21, 2012 Session AMANDA SMITH v. WILLIAM R. WALKER ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Moore County No. 930 Franklin Lee Russell, Judge No.
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
STANLEY V. MCCARVER: FORMAL DOCTOR- PATIENT RELATIONSHIP NOT REQUIRED FOR NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY Patrick I. Biggerstaff I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Nurse Christine Stanley submitted to a tuberculosis
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HOWARD MEDICAL, INC. t/a CIVIL ACTION ADVANCE AMBULANCE SERVICE, NO. 00-5977 Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, t/a TEMPLE
Can Defendants in a Medical Malpractice Claim With Separate and Distinct Duties Owed to Plaintiff be Joint Tortfeasors? By: Franklin D. Beahm Beahm & Green New Orleans, LA Louisiana Judicial Council/ National
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2008 ME 21 Docket: Cum-07-86 Argued: November 5, 2007 Decided: January 31, 2008 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Submitted On Briefs November 18, 2009 JOE HENRY MOORE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission No. 20-101-047 Nancy C. Miller
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 email@example.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes
CAROL PRICE IN THE Plaintiff CIRCUIT COURT vs. FOR SINAI HOSPITAL OF BALTIMORE, INC. BALTIMORE CITY CASE NO.: 24-C-04-007323 Defendant MEMORANDUM This case comes before this Court on a Petition for Court
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1884 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jolene Kay Coleman, Appellant. Filed January 3, 2012 Affirmed Kalitowski, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No.
THE PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE COMMITTEE Opinion 2009-11 (December 2009) The inquirer represented the Decedent in 1999 when he prepared her will. At the time, the Decedent was elderly
NO. 29551 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIfI DONALD T. OKIMOTO and KUMIKO OKIMOTO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KURT I. UYEHARA, D.D.S., Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-20, MARY
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District STEVE AUSTIN, Appellant, v. JOHN SCHIRO, M.D., Respondent. WD78085 OPINION FILED: May 26, 2015 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Missouri
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division John A. Stoltzfus Ph.D., LP, Petitioner, v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Docket No. C-13-1325 Decision
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2002 WI App 237 Case No.: 02-0261 Complete Title of Case: KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, SR., DEBRA J. FOLKMAN AND KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, JR., Petition for Review filed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: BAYCOL PRODUCTS LITIGATION MDL No. 1431 (MJD) This Document also relates to: Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872
Case 2:04-cv-00026-JES-DNF Document 471 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION MARCO ISLAND CABLE, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff,
Defenses in a Product Liability Claim written by: Mark Schultz, Esq. COZEN O CONNOR Suite 400, 200 Four Falls Corporate Center West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (800) 379-0695 (610) 941-5400 firstname.lastname@example.org
5.51 LEGAL MALPRACTICE (Approved 6/79) CHARGE 5.51A Page 1 of 9 A. General Duty Owing An action brought against an attorney alleging negligence in the practice of law is referred to as a malpractice action.
2000 PA Super 205 KATHLEEN BORING, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. CONEMAUGH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellee No. 1110 WDA 1999 Appeal from the Judgment entered June 15, 1999 in the Court
The DelliCarpini Law Firm Melville Law Center 877.917.9560 225 Old Country Road fax 631.923.1079 Melville, NY 11747 www.dellicarpinilaw.com John M. DelliCarpini Christopher J. DelliCarpini (admitted in
Introduction There are no substantive changes from RAJI (CIVIL) 4th to RAJI (CIVIL) 5th. The Medical Negligence Instructions are applicable to actions brought pursuant to A.R.S. Chapter 5.1, Actions Relating
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 15, 2000 Cornelia G. Clark Acting Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version
CASE 0:11-cv-00412-MJD-FLN Document 96 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation Case No. 07-MD-1836 (MJD/FLN) This document
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 2 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Emory H. Booker, III, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Emory
CHAPTER 2011-233 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 479 An act relating to medical malpractice; creating ss. 458.3175, 459.0066,
. EMPLOYMENT FEDERAL RAILWAY SAFETY ACT. LEGAL OVERVIEW (GENERAL) The Federal Railway Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., (the FRSA ) was enacted in 1970 to promote safety in every area of railroad operations
FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET The civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form
United States vs. McNeely: Analysis and Implications for DWI Enforcement in Minnesota 1 By Peter Ivy and Peter Orput, MCPA Co-Counsel 2 1) McNeely Background and Supreme Court Holding On April 17, 2013,
Introduction to Compliance with FDA Labeling and Advertising Requirements Second Annual Pharmaceutical Industry Regulatory and Compliance Summit Dick Kenny FDA History Basic function of government Oldest
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO FRANKLIN MILLER, et al., : Plaintiffs : CASE NO. 2012 CVA 01052 vs. : Judge McBride H&G NURSING HOMES, INC., et al., : DECISION/ENTRY Defendants : Slater & Zurz,
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 55 Court of Appeals No. 11CA0892 Office of Administrative Courts No. 0S20110010 In re the complaint filed by the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, Appellant, and concerning
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: Boulder County Justice Center 1777 Sixth St Boulder, Colorado 80302 Court Phone: (303) 441-3750 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO vs. SHERRI ANN VERSFELT,
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STACEY MCELHANEY, as Next Friend of JEREL MCELHANEY, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION January 19, 2006 9:10 a.m. v No. 254376 Wayne Circuit
[Cite as Stanley v. Community Hosp., 2011-Ohio-1290.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO GEORGE STANLEY, et al. : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2010 CA 53 v. : T.C. NO. 07CV213 COMMUNITY
Appendix 14.2 History of Tobacco Product Litigation United States v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Department of Justice Case) 3 Class Actions 4 References 6 1 The Health Consequences of Smoking 50 Years of Progress
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-0222 Karyn Larson Smith, Appellant, vs. Argosy
PRODUCT LIABILITY Product Liability Litigation The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance By Kenneth Ross Product liability litigation and product safety regulatory activities in the U.S. and elsewhere
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE HERRICK GROUP & ASSOCIATES LLC : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 07-0628 : K.J.T., L.P., : Defendant : MEMORANDUM
Virtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics January 2012, Volume 14, Number 1: 31-34. HEALTH LAW The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the Supreme Court s Interpretation Valarie
PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 6, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court CITY CENTER WEST, LP, a Colorado limited partnership,
Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship [click] By Bruce A. Campbell 1 Introduction In most areas of the practice of law, there are a number of ethical issues that arise on a frequent
VOL. 38, NO. 2 AUTUMN 2012 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Eleventh Circuit Becomes Latest Circuit to Adopt Rebuttable Presumption That Fiduciaries Act Prudently by Investing in Employer Stock Douglas
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A12-2155 Marvin Orlando Johnson, petitioner, Appellant,
Form 1.997 Civil Cover Sheet The civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace r supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form shall
Case 0:05-cv-02409-DSD-RLE Document 51 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 05-2409(DSD/RLE) Kristine Forbes (Lamke) and Morgan Koop, Plaintiffs, v.
Michigan Prepared by Cardelli Lanfear P.C. 322 West Lincoln Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248.850.2179 Fax: 248.544.1191 1. Introduction History of Tort Reform in Michigan Michigan was one of the first states
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JOYCE FULLINGTON PLAINTIFF v. No. 4:10CV00236 JLH PLIVA, INC., formerly known as Pliva USA, Inc.; and MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1150 IN RE: PETITION TO AMEND RULE 4-1.5(F)(4)(B) OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT / COMMENTS OF DAN CYTRYN, ESQUIRE OF LAW OFFICES CYTRYN & SANTANA, P.A.
Supreme Court No. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Cathy Lee Barrette : v. : Vincent John Yakavonis, M.D. : Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.). O P
But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 By Matt Powers and Charles Lifland Since the California Supreme Court s 1991 decision in Mitchell
JANUARY 2006 Client Alert New FDA Rule on Prescription Drug Package Inserts Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of product liability actions against pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.
New Summer Course Drug Product Liability Litigation: Principles and Practice This June (A Term), Peter Grossi, Senior Counsel and former chair of the Litigation Group at Arnold & Porter, Washington, D.C.,
WHEN A CHILD MAY HAVE A TORT CLAIM: WHAT S THE CHILD S COURT- APPOINTED ATTORNEY TO DO? The Oregon Child Advocacy Project Professor Leslie J. Harris and Child Advocacy Fellows Colin Love-Geiger and Alyssa
PAGE 1 OF 5 1 (Use for claims arising on or after 1 October 2011.) The (state number) issue reads: Was the plaintiff [injured] [damaged] by the defendant s negligent performance of (corporate) (administrative)
Page 1 PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. ST. JOHN, et al., Defendants NO. 09-06388 COMMON PLEAS COURT OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2011 Pa. Dist. & Cnty.
BAD FAITH INSTRUCTIONS Introduction These instructions are not materially changed from RAJI (CIVIL) 4th. The duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract. Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and Others similarly situated, v. Michael Harrison, Esquire, Plaintiff, Defendant. OPINION Civ. No. 07-4255 (WHW) Walls,
05/02/03 See News Release 032 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 03-B-0910 IN RE: HARRY E. CANTRELL, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This matter arises