ILNews

Appeals court reverses summary judgment for pharmacist, CVS

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that a pharmacist working in a Hendricks County CVS had a duty of care to a customer to either warn her of the side effects of a drug or withhold the medication. As a result, the judges reversed summary judgment in favor of the drug store and pharmacist in a negligence suit.

Christine Kolozsvari had a prescription filled for OsmoPrep to prepare her for an upcoming colonoscopy. She had the prescription filled at the CVS where she filled all her other prescriptions, including Lisinopril, an ACE inhibitor that treats hypertension.

When filling the OsmoPrep prescription, pharmacist Kelley Branchfield disregarded a warning on the computer screen that OsmoPrep posed a risk of renal failure because of Kolozsvari’s age. A document provided to pharmacists also says that using OsmoPrep may interact with Lisinopril and cause kidney damage.

When the drug didn’t work as scheduled, Kolozsvari’s doctor called in another prescription for the pill. Again, Branchfield ignored a computer-generate notification, this time that the prescription exceeded the amount considered safe in such a short period of time and could increase risk of renal failure.

After taking the pills both times, Kolozsvari had tingling sensations in her arms that increased after taking the second pill. She went to the hospital and was diagnosed with kidney failure. She now must undergo dialysis for the rest of her life or receive a kidney transplant.

She and her husband sued her doctor, doctor’s nurse, CVS, and Branchfield for negligence and loss of consortium. The trial court granted summary judgment for CVS and the pharmacist.

In Christine and Ivan Kolozsvari v. John Doe, M.D., Jane Doe, R.N., Kelley Branchfield, R.Ph., and Hook SuperX, LLC, No. 32A04-1008-CT-525, the appellate judges only addressed whether Branchfield and CVS were negligent in not warning Kolozsvari about the possible serious side effects. They cited Indiana Code Section 25-26-13-1, which deals with pharmacists and says they must fill all valid prescriptions unless an appropriate exercise of professional judgment indicates that honoring the prescription would be against the patient’s best interests or be contrary to the patient’s health or safety. The judges also referenced Pharmacy Board Rule 1-33-2, which says a pharmacist must initiate an offer to counsel the patient on matters concerning the drug, including side effects or interactions, and Hooks SuperX Inc v. McLaughlin, 642 N.E2d 514, 517 (Ind. 1994).  

“Just as in McLaughlin, where the pharmacist knew that McLaughlin’s refill of his prescriptions was unreasonably rapid and this should have alerted the pharmacist to the substance abuse issues likely associated with this behavior, here, Branchfield had information that gave rise to a duty to exercise professional judgment under the statute,” wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey.

The judges remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT