2011 Pa. Super. 23 - Daniel v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 11 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he manufacturer of a prescription drug known to be dangerous for its intended use, has a duty to exercise reasonable care to inform those for whose use the article was supplied of the facts which make the product likely to be dangerous. ■ However, the warnings which are required to be given by the manufacturer must be directed to the physician, not the consumer. This is so because it is the' duty of the prescribing physician to be fully aware of (1) the characteristics of the drug he is prescribing, (2) the amount of the drug which can be safely administered, and (3) the different medications the patient is taking. It is also the duty of the prescribing physician to advise the patient of any dangers or side effects associated with the use of the drug as well as how and when to take the drug. The warnings which must accompany such drugs are directed to the physician rather than to the patient-consumer as it is for the prescribing physician to use his independent medical judgment, taking into account the data supplied to him from the manufacturer, other medical literature, and any other sources available to him, and weighing that knowledge against the personal medical history of his patient, whether to prescribe a given drug. Thus, in an action against a drug manufacturer based upon inadequate warnings, the issue to be determined is whether the warning, if any, that was given to the prescribing physicians was proper and adequate.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Salvio v. Amgen, Inc. · 137 F. Supp. 3d 802 - Bock v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

2. “Proximate cause is an essential element in a failure to warn case. A proximate, or legal cause, is defined as a substantial contributing factor in bringing about the harm in question. Assuming that a plaintiff has established both duty and a failure to warn, a plaintiff must further establish proximate causation by showing that had defendant issued a proper warning [], he would have altered his behavior and the injury would have been avoided. To create a jury question, the evidence introduced must be of sufficient weight to establish ... some reasonable likelihood that an adequate warning would have prevented the plaintiff from receiving the drug.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Maya v. Johnson & Johnson

3. “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge beyond that possessed by a layperson”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stange, T. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals