Trial Court Addresses Validity of Claims Against a Drugstore

In the case of Burke v. Hoffman Health Partners, P.C., No. 2024-CV-8753 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 4, 2025 Powell, J.), the court addressed various Preliminary Objections filed in a medical malpractice case.

In this matter, the Plaintiff alleged that she sustained severe injuries after being prescribed and dispensed a medication inappropriately. 

The Plaintiff sued the medical providers relative to the prescription of the medication. She also sued CVS, who allegedly filled the prescription without providing the required counseling, verifying the safety of the prescription, or reconciling what the Plaintiff alleged were inadequacies on the face of the prescription with the prescribing physician.

With regards to the claims against CVS, the court found that the Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged both vicarious and direct liability claims.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that the CVS agents failed to counsel the Plaintiff, ignored dosage red flags, and did not consult with the prescribing physician. The Plaintiff additionally alleged ischemic failures in the training, policy enforcement, and prescription review within CVS.

The court ruled that, under the facts alleged, such claims could rise to the level of reckless indifference and could warrant a claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, CVS’ Preliminary Objections were overruled.

The court otherwise overruled the preliminary objections asserted against by the medical Defendants against the punitive damages claims as well. The court held that the Plaintiff’s claims of misdiagnosis, discharged despite warning signs, and inadequate supervision of the Plaintiff as a patient, all supported direct claims and warranted the consideration of punitive damages.

The court did, however, sustain the Preliminary Objection filed by Geisinger Clinic to a claim for vicarious liability for punitive damages because the court found that the Complaint failed to allege that the clinic had actual knowledge of its agents’ conduct as required under §505(c) of the MCARE Act.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: Lackawanna Jurist Case Summary (Aug. 15, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Marques Thomas on www.unsplash.com.

Federal Court Addresses Viability of Products Liability Claims Involving Medical Devices

In the case of Douglas v. Atrium Medical Corp., No. 3:23-CV-747-JKM (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2024 Munley, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss after finding that settled Pennsylvania law did not allow for strict liability claims in a products liability litigation relative to claims involving prescription drugs and medical devices.

The case arose out of issues regarding the use of a hernia mesh as treatment.   

Judge Munley also denied the request for a certification of the strict liability issues for an interlocutory appeal because there was no substantial ground for a difference of opinion on this decision.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Souce of image:  Photo by Vidatl Balielo, Jr. on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court Addresses Potiential Liability of Drug Manufacturer in Products Liability Case

In the case of DiCair v. Gilead Sci., Inc., No. 21-CV-5486 (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2022 Schiller, J.), the court ruled that negligent failure-to-warn and strict liability product claims against a pharmaceutical manufacturer were barred as a matter of Pennsylvania law.  As such, a Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant designed and manufactured a prescription medication sold under the trade name of Harvoni which was used to treat Hepatitis C. 

The Plaintiff’s decedent was prescribed the medication and, after taking the medication, was diagnosed with a form of liver cancer. The Plaintiff’s decedent passed away thereafter.

The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging a failure to warn and design and manufacturing defect claims under both negligence and strict liability. The Plaintiffs claimed that the decedent’s development of cancer was caused by his use of the medication.

The court dismissed the negligent failure-to-warn claim, noting that it was well-settled Pennsylvania law that pharmaceutical companies do not owe a duty to warn the public. Rather, manufacturers of medications are only required to warn prescribing doctors of the risk of the medications.  The court cited to the learned intermediary doctrine which holds that drug manufacturers are only required to direct required drug safety warnings to physicians who, in turn, are required to relay the same to patients.

However, the court declined to dismiss the Plaintiff’s negligent design and manufacturing defect theories, finding that the Plaintiff had asserted a valid cause of action that the Defendants had allegedly negligently designed and manufactured the medication.

Lastly, the court did dismiss the Plaintiff’s strict liability claims after holding that strict liability claims against prescription drug manufacturers were barred by Pennsylvania products liability law.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 12, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Anna Shvets on www.pexels.com.