Recent Development by Mandy Foster
Within a few weeks of taking the prescription drug Lamisil for a toenail infection, patient Joseph B. Stahl developed cholestatic hepatitis, a serious form of liver dysfunction. Stahl's treating physician was aware of the risks of liver dysfunction associated with use of Lamisil, and he had planned to conduct liver function tests on Stahl after six weeks of treatment. This testing timetable was in accordance with the warnings and instructions contained in the Lamisil package insert provided by the manufacturer, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
Stahl sued Novartis in federal district court in Louisiana under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA or Act), claiming that Lamisil is unreasonably dangerous because of a defect in composition and because of an inadequate warning. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Novartis's motion for summary judgment, finding that Stahl failed to produce evidence that Lamisil is unreasonably dangerous in composition or that the warnings and instructions provided by Novartis in the package insert were inadequate under the LPLA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the summary judgment dismissal of Stahl's LPLA claims was appropriate. Stahl v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, No. 011835, 2002 WL 1365074 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2002).
About the Author
Mandy Foster.
Citation
77 Tul. L. Rev. 803 (2003)