You are here: / / PHARMACIST’S DUTY OF CARE CLEARLY ARTICULATED AFTER IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS;...
,

PHARMACIST’S DUTY OF CARE CLEARLY ARTICULATED AFTER IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE/WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE PHARMACIST AND PHARMACY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant pharmacist and pharmacy (the CVS defendants) were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligence/wrongful death causes of action against them. Plaintiff’s decedent was prescribed hydromorphone for pain (up to eight milligrams every three hours). The prescription was filled by defendant pharmacist. Shortly after returning home from the hospital and taking an eight milligram dosage of hydromorphone, plaintiff’s decedent gasped for air and died. The autopsy identified the cause of death as acute hydromorphone intoxication. Noting that the duty of care owed to a patient by a pharmacist had not been clearly articulated, the Second Department issued a comprehensive opinion tracing the historical role of pharmacists and several analogous standards of care. The court concluded the pharmacist has a duty to accurately fill a doctor’s prescription and need not inquire further unless there exists a clear-cut contraindication for use of the medication. No such contraindication was apparent here. The court described the pharmacist’s duty as follows:

… [W]e conclude that, when a pharmacist has demonstrated that he or she did not undertake to exercise any independent professional judgment in filling and dispensing prescription medication, that pharmacist cannot be held liable for negligence in the absence of evidence that he or she failed to fill the prescription precisely as directed by the prescribing physician or that the prescription was so clearly contraindicated that ordinary prudence required the pharmacist to take additional measures before dispensing the medication … . Abrams v Bute, 2016 NY Slip Op 01627, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

NEGLIGENCE (PHARMACIST’S DUTY OF CARE CLEARLY ARTICULATED)/PHARMACISTS (DUTY OF CARE IN DISPENSING MEDICATION CLEARLY ARTICULATED)

You might also like
COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
Trustees Were Not Required by Town Law to Turn Over to the Town Board Trust Revenues Generated by Water Management in the Town of Southampton
STAY IMPOSED BY A SOUTH CAROLINA COURT AS PART OF THE LIQUIDATION OF A SOUTH CAROLINA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN A NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS INSURED BY THE INSOLVENT CARRIER (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO READ THE INDICTMENT TO THE JURY TO SHOW THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS OF COERCION IN THE INDICTMENT AND THE PROOF AT TRIAL WAS RENDERED MOOT BY THE DISMISSAL OF THE COERCION COUNT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PROHIBITION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
Triable Issues of Fact Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Allowing Third Parties to Operate Remote Control Cars On Its Parking Lot—Motorcyclist Injured When Attempting to Avoid a Remote Controlled Car
THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF INSISTED ON THE PROCEDURE DESPITE THE RISKS OR DECLINED ANY PROFFERED EXPLANATION OF THE RISKS (SECOND DEPT).
Grant of Custody to Maternal Grandparents Rather than Parent Reversed
Question of Fact Whether Softball Coach’s Having Infant Plaintiff Practice Sliding on Grass Increased the Inherent Risk of the Activity Precluded Summary Judgment

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

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

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OFFICER DEMONSTRATED RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY... USE OF PLAINTIFF’S LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE; EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION...