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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT