December 16, 2007 9:21 AM
Posted By News Questions
& comments 1
Court Considers Physician Liability for Failing to Warn of Drug Side-effects
Massachusetts' highest court allowed a lawsuit against a physician to go forward who failed to warn his patient about the side-effects of various medications he prescribed, the Boston Globe reported. The patient's car struck and killed a ten-year-old boy who was standing on the sidewalk after the driver passed out.
The article here kinda misses the point of the ruling. The court allowed a suit by a third party against a doctor, because the doctor failed to warn the patient of side effects. So, it was the estate of the 10 year old boy who sued, not the patient.
Also, the court was sharply divided, with two justices, out of the six sitting on the case, saying that the case should not have been allowed to proceed, and the other four split 3/1 on under what theory the case should have proceeded. Three said that doctors are always liable to third parties when the harm was foreseeable, the other saying that only in special circumstances, such as failing at their duty of informed consent, should doctors be liable to foreseeable third parties.
As such, there was no opinion of the court, and the next time this issue comes before the court it could be up in the air all over again.
The article here kinda misses the point of the ruling. The court allowed a suit by a third party against a doctor, because the doctor failed to warn the patient of side effects. So, it was the estate of the 10 year old boy who sued, not the patient.
Also, the court was sharply divided, with two justices, out of the six sitting on the case, saying that the case should not have been allowed to proceed, and the other four split 3/1 on under what theory the case should have proceeded. Three said that doctors are always liable to third parties when the harm was foreseeable, the other saying that only in special circumstances, such as failing at their duty of informed consent, should doctors be liable to foreseeable third parties.
As such, there was no opinion of the court, and the next time this issue comes before the court it could be up in the air all over again.