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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT