Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:19:16.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Developments in Health Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In West Virginia, healthy smokers can now sue tobacco companies to require them to fund medical monitoring for health risks associated with smoking. In Blankenship, formally known as In re Tobacco Litigation (Medical Monitoring Case), the Circuit Court for Ohio County permitted a jury to decide the medical monitoring claim, despite the clam’s novelty and controversy. The unanimous jury refused to enforce the plaintiffs’ demands, and the court denied a motion for retrial. This trial was the second attempt of the class action lawsuit; the court had previously declared a mistrial when an attorney used the word “addiction” in front of the jury.

The court certified a class of residents of the state of West Virginia with more than a five “pack-year history” (at least one pack per day for five years) of smoking the defendant tobacco companies’ cigarettes, who did not have any of a list of named smoking-related illnesses, including various cancers and coronary heart disease, and who did not receive health care paid for – or reimbursed by – the state of West Virginia.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , Winter 2002 , pp. 755 - 763
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

In re Tobacco Litigation (Medical Monitoring Case), No. 00-C-6000 (W Va. Cir. Ct., Ohio County, January 4, 2002) (order filed).Google Scholar
“Tobacco Companies Prevail in W. Va. Medical Monitoring Suit,” Andrews Mass Tort Litigation Reporter, 8, no. 9 (December 2001): 24.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
“New Trial Rejected in Tobacco Class Action,” Mealey’s Litigation Report: Tobacco, 15, no. 18 (January 28, 2002): 3.Google Scholar
“W Va. Class Action Against Tobacco Cos. Underway Again,” Mass Tort Litigation Reporter, 8, no. 7 (October 2001): 18.Google Scholar
IdGoogle Scholar
Brown, & Tobacco, Williamson, Blankenship II Backgrounder, August 28, 2001, at <http://www.brownandwilliamson.com/index_sub2.cfm?Page=/APPS/LitigationArchives/Index.cfm%3FID%3D635>..>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
“Enhanced risk” claims, which demand lump-sum damages for the chance of a future disease, are to be distinguished from medical monitoring or medical surveillance claims such as the one here, which ask for the provision of future monitoring.Google Scholar
“Plaintiffs’ Witness Admits Medical Groups Don’t Endorse Medical Monitoring,” Tobacco Industry Litigation Reporter, 16, no. 23 (October 5, 2001): 7.Google Scholar
Brown, & Tobacco, Williamson, supra note 7.Google Scholar
“Tobacco Companies Prevail in W. Va. Medical Monitoring Suit,” Toxic Chemicals Litigation Reporter, 19, no. 16 (November 30, 2001): 13.Google Scholar
Read, G.C., “Medical Monitoring: The New Gold Rush,” Defense Counsel Journal, 68, no. 2 (April 2001): 141–42.Google Scholar
Brown, & Tobacco, Williamson, supra note 7.Google Scholar
Wire Reports, “Jury Turns Down Suit Against Tobacco Firms,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, November 15, 2001.Google Scholar
“Tobacco Companies Prevail in W. Va. Medical Monitoring Suit,” supra note 12.Google Scholar
Blaner, K.L., “State Jury Demonstrates Deep Flaws in ‘Medical Monitoring,’” Legal Backgrounder, 16, no. 55 (December 14, 2001) (quoting “A Victory for Common Sense over W. Va. ‘Grievance Industry,’” Charleston Daily Mail, November 15, 2001, at A4.)Google Scholar
Daynard, R.A. and Gottlieb, M., “Tobacco Class Actions Fire Up,” Trial, 37 (November 2001): 18–25.Google Scholar
“New Trial Rejected in Tobacco Class Action,” supra note 4.Google Scholar
Bower v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 522 S.E.2d 424, 430 (W. Va. 1999).Google Scholar
Daynard, and Gottlieb, , supra note 18, at 25.Google Scholar
Blaner, , supra note 17, at 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 3.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
“In Sickness and in Health,” The Washington Post, January 15, 2001, at A20.Google Scholar
Read, , supra note 13, at 141.Google Scholar
Bower, , 522 S.E.2d at 429–30.Google Scholar
Blaner, , supra note 17.Google Scholar
Read, , supra note 13, at 141.Google Scholar
Id. (quoting Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424, 442 (1997)).Google Scholar
DiPaola, T.A. and Roberts, G.W., “Back to the Future: Recognition of ‘Medical Monitoring’ Claims in Florida,” The Florida Bar Journal, 74 (2000): 28–40, at 33.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
“Plaintiffs’ Witness Admits Medical Groups Don’t Endorse Medical Monitoring,” supra note 10.Google Scholar
DiPaola, and Roberts, , supra note 33, at 33–34.Google Scholar
Id. at 34 (quoting Bower, 522 S.E.2d at 434).Google Scholar

References

Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 766 N.E.2d 1118 (Ill. 2002).Google Scholar
Id. at 1120 n.1 (defining “contraindication” as “an indication, symptom, or condition that makes inadvisable a particular treatment or procedure”) (quoting Gove, P.B. et al., eds., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Springfield, Illinois: Merriam-Webster, 1993): at 495). See also id. at 1125 (“a contraindication is a serious limitation on a drug’s use, necessarily implying grave consequences if it is ignored. As one court has noted, a contraindication refers to ‘a circumstance under which the drug must never be given.’”) (quoting Hand v. Krakowski, 453 N.Y.S.2d 121, 123 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)).Google Scholar
Id. at 1129.Google Scholar
Id. at 1130.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 1127.Google Scholar
Noah, L., “The Learned Intermediary Doctrine: A Sensible Duty Limitation or an Anachronism?,” Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 10 (Fall 2000): 98–101, at 98–99. The following purposes support the learned intermediary doctrine: Preventing court intrusion on the doctor-patient relationship, which undermines the patient’s trust in the physician; recognizing the superior position of physicians as information distributors; solving the problem that drug manufacturers lack effective means to communicate warnings directly to patients; and ensuring patient comprehension of complexities.Google Scholar
Matter, M.R., “Emerging DTC Advertising of Prescription Drugs and the Learned Intermediary Doctrine,” Defense Counsel Journal, 69 (January 2002): 79–87. Other rationales for the learned intermediary doctrine include: “(1) the physician’s training and experience; (2) the physician’s evaluation of the patient’s needs and wishes; (3) the assumption that the physician is better situated than the manufacturer to convey the appropriate and applicable warnings to the ultimate user; (4) the fact that warnings to consumers might interfere with the traditional physician-patient relationship; and (5) that it is difficult, if not impossible, to convey appropriate warnings to the consumer in view of the highly technical nature of the information and the variations in the needs of individual patient characteristics.” Id. at 81.Google Scholar
Happel, , 766 N.E.2d at 1126.Google Scholar
Id. at 1130.Google Scholar
Id. at 1122.Google Scholar
Id. at 1120.Google Scholar
Toradol is a “nonsterodial antiinflammatory drug manufactured by Syntex Laboratories, Inc.” Zaremski, M.J. and Rothschild, I.S., Pharmacy Bears Some Liability for Prescription Danger, Amednews.com, at <http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_01/prca0212.htm> (February 12, 2001); Happel, 766 N.E.2d, at 1121.+(February+12,+2001);+Happel,+766+N.E.2d,+at+1121.>Google Scholar
Happel, , 766 N.E.2d, at 1120.Google Scholar
Id. at 1121.Google Scholar
Id. (noting Wal-Mart policy required its pharmacists to ask customers about drug allergies before filling a prescription order to avoid dispensing drugs to which customers were allergic).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 1122.Google Scholar
Id. at 1122 n.2 (“‘anaphylactic’ is derived from the term ‘anaphylaxis,’ which is defined as ‘hypersensitivity (as to foreign proteins or drugs) manifested in man in acute serum sickness and in severe or fatal reactions to second or later administrations of certain drugs’”) (quoting Gove, P.B. et al., eds., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Springfield, Illinois: Merriam-Webster, 1993): at 78).Google Scholar
Happel v. Wal-Mart, 737 N.E.2d 650 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).Google Scholar
Happel, , 766 N.E.2d at 1120.Google Scholar
Id. at 1129.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 1120.Google Scholar
Id. at 1123–24.Google Scholar
Id. at 1124.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 1125.Google Scholar
Id. at 1127 (quoting Eldridge v. Eli Lilly & Co., 485 N.E.2d 551, 553 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985). The Eldridge court held that a pharmacist does not have a duty to warn physicians or question dosage amount when quantity of prescription seems high).Google Scholar
Happel, , 766 N.E.2d at 1126.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Jones v. Irvin, 602 F. Supp. 399 (D. Ill. 1985); Fakhouri v. Taylor, 618 N.E.2d 518 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993), app. den. 622 N.E. 2d 1204 (1993); Eldridge v. Eli Lilly & Co., 485 N.E.2d 551 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985).Google Scholar
Happel, , 766 N.E.2d at 1130.Google Scholar
Id. at 1128.Google Scholar
Id. (quoting Happel, 737 N.E.2d at 656).Google Scholar
Id. at 1124.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Matter, , supra note 8, at 81 (the list of recognized exceptions to the learned intermediary doctrine includes: “(1) mass vaccinations, (2) oral contraceptives, (3) contraceptive devices and (4) over-promoted drugs”).Google Scholar
See Morgan v. Wal-Mart Stores, 30 S.W.3d 455, 465 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000) (a pharmacist dispensing a drug in accordance with a valid prescription need not warn of adverse side-effects absent unusual circumstances)Google Scholar
Hornish, M.L., “Just What the Doctor Ordered — Or Was It? Missouri Pharmacists’ Duty of Care in the 21st Century,” Missouri Law Review, 65 (Fall 2000): 1075–1100, at 1076.Google Scholar
Id. at 1092 (noting most courts follow the traditional view; however, this view is changing as scholars adopt a new perspective regarding pharmacists’ role in health care).Google Scholar
Noah, , supra note 7, at 99 (critics argue that the learned intermediary doctrine “reflects an anachronistic and excessively paternalistic model of the doctor-patient relationship. It fails to take account of the recent changes in the delivery of health care services. In particular, some critics argue that the emergence of managed care organizations has constrained physician autonomy so substantially that prescribing decisions may no longer reflect an informed medical judgment”). See also Hornish, , supra note 42, at 1079–80 (“Two approaches toward this duty have evolved in the law: the traditional approach and the modern approach. The traditional approach imposes a duty only ‘to accurately fill valid prescriptions as directed by the treating physician.’ Under the traditional view, a pharmacist is a ‘technician,’ whose duty is simply to accurately dispense the drugs themselves. The modern approach, however, more fully recognizes pharmacists’ knowledge and training.”).Google Scholar
‘Hornish, , supra note 42, at 1091–92.Google Scholar

References

Florida Board of Medicine v. Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., 808 So. 2d 243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. January 23, 2002).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. § 64B8–9.009 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. § 64B8–9.009(4)(b) (stating that to perform a level II surgery, physician must have either staff privileges with a hospital or a transfer agreement with a hospital); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. § 64B8–9.009(6)(b) (stating that physician must have staff privileges at a hospital that performs the same type of procedure the doctor performs in an office setting).Google Scholar
See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. § 64B8–9.009(6)(b)(1)(a) (stating that before a surgeon can perform level III office surgery, the surgeon must be able to prove that he or she is qualified to engage in such a procedure through board certification, staff privileges with a hospital, or comparable experience and that surgeon has knowledge of the principles of anesthesia. A licensed M.D. or D.O. anesthesiologist must be present if the surgeon does not have knowledge of the principles of anesthesia.).Google Scholar
Florida Board of Medicine, 808 So. 2d at 249–50.Google Scholar
Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery v. Department of Health, Board of Medicine, No. 00-1058RX, 2000 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 5307 (September 7, 2000).Google Scholar
Fla. Acad. of Cosmetic Surgery v. Dep’t of Health, Bd. of Med., No. 00-0951RP 2000 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 5295 (November 16, 2000).Google Scholar
Florida Board of Medicine, 808 So. 2d at 251.Google Scholar
Fla. Stat. § 120.52(8) (1999).Google Scholar
Fla. Stat. § 458.331(v) (1999) (“The board may establish by rule standards of practice and standards of care for particular practice settings, including but not limited to, education and training, equipment and supplies, medications including anesthetics, assistance of and delegation to other personnel, [and] transfer agreements….”).Google Scholar
Florida Board of Medicine, 808 So. 2d at 254.Google Scholar
Fla. Stat. § 120.52(8).Google Scholar
Florida Board of Medicine, 808 So. 2d at 255 (citing Board of Clinical Laboratory Personnel v. Florida Ass’n of Blood Banks, 721 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 255–56.Google Scholar
Id. at 256.Google Scholar
Fla. Stat. § 120.52(8)(f).Google Scholar
Florida Board of Medicine, 808 So. 2d at 257.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 258.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Florida Board of Medicine, 808 So. 2d at 260.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 261.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Douglas, D., “Appeals Court Reverses ALJ’s Ruling on Hospital Privilege in Office Surgeries,” BNA’s Health Care Daily Report, 7, no. 25 (February 6, 2002).Google Scholar