Hooks SuperX, Inc. v. McLaughlin
642 N.E.2d 514, 1994 Ind. LEXIS 147, 1994 WL 619709 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a pharmacy customer is refilling a prescription for a dangerous drug at a rate unreasonably faster than prescribed, the pharmacist has a duty to cease refilling the prescription pending direct and explicit directions from the prescribing physician.
Facts:
- Patrick McLaughlin injured his back and subsequently developed an addiction to propoxyphene, a painkiller found in drugs like Darvocet.
- After receiving treatment for addiction several times, McLaughlin began seeing Dr. Bernard Edwards in 1988 for continued pain management.
- Dr. Edwards prescribed drugs containing propoxyphene for McLaughlin.
- McLaughlin had these prescriptions filled at a Hooks drugstore, where pharmacists Kathy O’Dell and Craig Merrick dispensed the medication.
- Over many months, McLaughlin consumed the drugs at a rate far exceeding the prescription instructions; in one 60-day period, he obtained a 188-day supply and consumed it in 62 days.
- The pharmacy's records showed McLaughlin refilled his propoxyphene prescription twelve times in a single month.
- In late 1988, after Dr. Edwards learned of the rapid consumption, he refused to issue more prescriptions.
- Shortly thereafter, McLaughlin's wife found him in a state of depression, holding a shotgun to his head.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick and Michelle McLaughlin sued Hooks-SuperX, Inc. and its pharmacists in an Indiana trial court.
- Hooks filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty to McLaughlin.
- The trial court denied Hooks' motion for summary judgment.
- At Hooks' request, the trial court certified its order for an interlocutory appeal.
- Hooks, as the appellant, appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ruling that no such duty existed, and instructed the trial court to enter summary judgment for Hooks.
- The McLaughlins, as appellees in the prior appeal, petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for transfer.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pharmacist have a legal duty to refuse to fill otherwise valid prescriptions for a dangerous drug when a customer's refill history indicates they are consuming the drug at an unreasonably fast rate?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
Yes, a pharmacist has a legal duty to refuse to fill valid prescriptions under these circumstances. To determine if a duty exists, the court balances three factors: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the foreseeability of the harm, and (3) public policy. First, the court found a direct, contractual relationship exists between a pharmacist and customer, where the customer relies on the pharmacist's expertise. Second, it is reasonably foreseeable that a patient consuming an addictive drug at such an accelerated rate will suffer harm from addiction. Third, public policy supports imposing this duty to help prevent drug abuse, a goal reflected in state statutes that permit pharmacists to refuse prescriptions they believe will aid an addiction. The court reasoned that this duty does not unduly interfere with the physician-patient relationship and that modern computer systems make it easy for pharmacists to monitor refill rates without significant additional cost. Finally, the court held that McLaughlin's suicide attempt was not necessarily a superseding cause of his injuries as a matter of law, as a jury could find it was an involuntary act resulting from his addiction.
Dissenting - Givan, J.
The justice dissented without providing a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant new affirmative duty for pharmacists, moving their role beyond simply dispensing medication accurately to include monitoring for potential abuse. It clarifies that a pharmacist's professional judgment is a critical component of their duty of care, especially in the context of controlled substances. The ruling creates a new avenue of liability for pharmacies, particularly those with computerized record-keeping systems that make patterns of abuse readily apparent. This precedent signals that courts may hold healthcare professionals accountable not just for their direct actions, but also for their failure to act as gatekeepers when they have knowledge of a patient's dangerous behavior.
