Hooks superx v mclaughlin

McLaughlin regarding negligence in filling prescriptions. Ruling that a pharmacist has a duty to a customer not to refill a prescription for an addictive drug as a faster rate than prescribes; Affirmative duty to refrain from dispensing prescription drugs when a customer's rate of consumption suggests an addiction or imprudent use.

Hooks superx v mclaughlin

Supreme Court of Indiana. Where a pharmacy customer is having a prescription for a dangerous drug refilled at an unreasonably faster rate than the rate prescribed, the pharmacist has a duty to cease refilling the prescription pending direct and explicit directions from the prescribing physician.

Pharmacy customers, Patrick and Michelle McLaughlin plaintiffs-appellees belowseek transfer after the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, which had recognized such a duty, and ordered the entry of summary judgment in favor of Hooks-SuperX, Inc. McLaughlinInd. Facts The following facts are uncontested for purposes of summary judgment.

Patrick McLaughlin injured his back while working as a lumberjack in the state of Washington. In the course of treatment for that injury, he became addicted to propoxyphene, the active chemical in the drugs Darvocet and Darvon.

He was treated for the addiction in, andbut he did not stop using the drug.

Hooks superx v mclaughlin

Inbecause he was still experiencing pain from the injury, he began treatment with Dr. Bernard Edwards in South Bend, Indiana. Over a period of months inMcLaughlin obtained prescriptions for drugs containing propoxyphene from Dr.

The prescriptions were dispensed either on the basis of written prescriptions from Dr. McLaughlin consumed these drugs at a rate much faster than prescribed. For example, during one sixty-day period inMcLaughlin received twenty-four separate refills of propoxyphene compounds, totalling 1, tablets.

If consumed according to the prescription, the number of tablets would have lasted a period of days; McLaughlin consumed the tablets in 62 days, almost two and one half times faster than the prescription ordered.

Hooks superx v mclaughlin

In one month alone, propoxyphene prescriptions were filled twelve times, which means that McLaughlin or his wife appeared in the Hooks store once every two or three days.

In lateafter Dr. Edwards apparently became aware that McLaughlin was consuming propoxyphene drugs at a rate much faster than prescribed, he refused to furnish any more prescriptions.

He did not pull the trigger. Following treatment for drug addiction in earlyMcLaughlin stopped taking all prescription pain medication. The McLaughlins sought recovery against Hooks on the theory that it breached its duty of care by failing to stop filling the prescriptions because the pharmacists knew or should have known that McLaughlin was consuming the drugs so frequently that it posed a threat to his health.

Appellate Rule 4 B 6. A majority of the Court of Appeals concluded that no duty existed and that imposition of a duty would be contrary to public policy because it would undermine the physician-patient relationship. Because of that holding, the Court of Appeals did not reach the issue of causation.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of Hooks. The McLaughlins seek transfer. We address the following issues: Whether pharmacists may be legally obligated to refuse to fill validly-issued prescriptions; and 2.

Standard of Review This case was resolved by summary judgment for which our standard of review is well-established. The reviewing court faces the same issues that were before the court below and follows the same process. ArmstrongInd. Although the party appealing from the grant of summary judgment has the burden of persuading the reviewing court that the entry of summary judgment was erroneous, the reviewing court carefully scrutinizes the decision to assure that the party against whom summary judgment was entered was not improperly prevented from having his day in court.

Summary judgment is appropriate only if the pleadings and evidence sanctioned by Indiana Trial Rule 56 C show "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Duty It is axiomatic that without a duty, there can be no recovery in negligence.

JarvisInd. GrieselInd. Whether the law recognizes any obligation on the part of a particular defendant to conform his conduct to a certain standard for the benefit of the plaintiff is a question of law exclusively for the court.HOOK's-SUPERX, INC., Kathy O'Dell and Craig Merrick, Appellants-Defendants below, v.

Patrick D. McLaughlin, and Michelle McLaughlin, for Themselves and As Parents, Natural Guardians, and Next Friends of Patrick Michael McLaughlin and Alicia Rose McLaughlin, Minors, Appellees-Plaintiffs below.

Focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Hooks SuperX Inc. v. McLaughlin regarding negligence in filling prescriptions. Ruling that a pharmacist has a duty to a customer not to refill a prescription for an addictive drug as a faster rate than prescribes; Affirmative duty to refrain from dispensing.

HOOKS SUPERX, INC., Kathy O'Dell and Craig Merrick, Defendants-Appellants, v. Patrick D. McLaughlin, Michelle McLaughlin, for Themselves and As Parents, Guardians and Next Friends of Patrick Michael McLaughlin, and Alicia Rose McLaughlin, Minors, Plaintiffs-Appellees.

HOOK's-SUPERX, INC., Kathy O'Dell and Craig Merrick, Appellants-Defendants below, v. Patrick D. McLaughlin, and Michelle McLaughlin, for Themselves and As Parents, Natural Guardians, and Next Friends of Patrick Michael McLaughlin and Alicia Rose McLaughlin, Minors, Appellees-Plaintiffs below.

John C. 1: to occur, fall, or come between points of time or events [may be held liable even though other independent agencies between his negligence and the ultimate result "Hooks SuperxInc. v. McLaughlin, N.E.2d ()"]. PHP Exam 3 study guide by ajwebb3 includes 31 questions covering vocabulary, terms and more.

What was the decision of Ingram v Hooks Drugs? What was the decision of Hooks SuperX v. McLaughlin? Pharmacists have .

HOOK'S-SUPERX, INC. v. Mc | N.E.2d () | ne2d | ashio-midori.com