Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P went for treatment of chronic acne. After examination, her physician prescribed 20 milligrams daily of Accutane. D is the designer, manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, fabricator, and supplier of Accutane. As a result of taking the Accutane, P claims she developed ulcerative colitis, inflammatory polyarthritis, nodular episcleritis OS, and optic nerve head drusen. P alleged that the Accutane she took was defective, misbranded, and mislabeled. She alleged that D knew that Accutane was dangerous and/or posed significant health risks and that despite this knowledge, D misled the medical community and their patients with incomplete information regarding its safety by failing to disclose the side effects that P suffered. She also alleged that D made misrepresentations regarding the safety and effectiveness of Accutane in order to induce medical providers to select Accutane instead of other available drug options. P and her physician relied upon these misrepresentations. P alleged seven theories of recovery, the details of which are set out further in the analysis sections of this opinion: (1) strict liability on the bases that D distributed Accutane when it was not fit for its intended purpose and when the inherent risks outweighed the benefits of its use, and because it was unreasonably dangerous; (2) negligence on the bases that D performed negligent and careless research, testing, design, manufacture, and inspection of the product and failed to give adequate warnings of the risks of its use; (3) misrepresentation on the basis that Hoffman falsely represented to Freeman that Accutane was safe to use, thus inducing her to use the product; (4) failure to warn; (5) breach of implied warranty; (6) breach of express warranty; and (7) fear of future product failure on the basis that the actions of D caused P to suffer mental distress and anxiety. The court dismissed P's suit, and P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co