• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Cohen & Malad, LLP

Giving Power to Your Voice for Over 50 Years

Google Reviews
866.446.7478317.636.6481
Make a Payment free consult
  • English
  • Español

Search

  • About Us
  • Attorneys
  • Services
    • Appellate Law
    • Business Services & Litigation
    • Class Action
    • Eminent Domain
    • Family Law
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Personal Injury
    • Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Litigation
    • Real Estate Services & Litigation
    • Sexual Abuse
  • Testimonials
  • Resources
    • Alerts
    • Firm News
    • Video Library
    • Blog
    • FAQs
  • Contact
  • English
    • Español

Failure to Warn and the Learned Intermediary Doctrine

Home » Practice Areas » Pharmaceutical Drug And Medical Device Litigation » Failure to Warn and the Learned Intermediary Doctrine

Failure to Warn of Pharmaceutical Risk of Injury Lawyers

Failure to warn actions generally arise in products liability actions against pharmaceutical companies. Failure to warn is when a manufacturer or seller of a product fails to provide the consumer with adequate or sufficient warnings of the potential risk of injury known to result from the use of its product, and that failure results in an injury. In cases against pharmaceutical manufacturers, the failure to include adequate warnings in the labels of drugs and medical devices may render the product defective.

In most jurisdictions, a manufacturer’s duty to warn is triggered when the manufacturer knew or should have known of the risk of an injury. A breach of this duty results in liability of the manufacturer for injuries sustained by consumers of its product. In an action against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, the manufacturer has the duty to warn the prescribing physician, and not the patient, of all risks attendant to a pharmaceutical drug or medical device. This is known as the “learned intermediary doctrine.” The learned intermediary doctrine provides that a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s duty to warn has been fulfilled when it adequately warns the prescribing physicians – the learned intermediary – of the risks and dangers associated with its product. This doctrine is based on the principle that the prescribing physician is the one that interacts and communicates with the patient. Therefore, under the “heeding presumption”, which is followed in certain states, the fact finder is allowed to presume that the patient would have heeded to an adequate warning if one had been given by his or her physician and would have avoided injury. Accordingly, if the fact-finder finds that the pharmaceutical manufacturer adequately warned the prescribing doctor of the risks and dangers of its product, the manufacturer’s duty is discharged. The learned intermediary doctrine is one of the most important defenses used by manufacturers of medical devices and drugs as it shields them from liability.

Contact our offices to discuss your situation. Colen & Malad, LLP is here to help victims who are injured by defective medications. Call us today!

Primary Sidebar

ASK ABOUT SCHEDULING AN INITIAL FREE CONSULTATION TODAY

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Cohen & Malad, LLP

One Indiana Square Suite 1400
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 636-6481
Toll Free: (866) 446-7478

Copyright © 2023 Cohen & Malad, LLP
Disclaimer Privacy Policy

  • About Us
  • Attorneys
  • Services
    ▼
    • Appellate Law
    • Business Services & Litigation
    • Class Action
    • Eminent Domain
    • Family Law
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Personal Injury
    • Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Litigation
    • Real Estate Services & Litigation
    • Sexual Abuse
  • Testimonials
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Alerts
    • Firm News
    • Video Library
    • Blog
    • FAQs
  • Contact
  • English
    ▼
    • Español