Misfilled Prescription May Lead To Liability To Daughter Who Administered Drug To Ill Mother
27 Jul 2007
April 1999 Legal Case Study
A Nevada pharmacy that allegedly gave a patient the wrong drug may be liable to the daughter of the patient for emotional distress-Crippens v. Sav On Drug Stores, 961 P.2d 761 (Nev-198) The Nevada Supreme Court held that because of a Pharmacy's allegedly misfilled prescription, they could be sued by a daughter who watched her mother slip into a coma. The court held that she could sue the pharmacy for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The pharmacy should have foreseen that providing the wrong drug would harm the mother and that the daughter would administer the inappropriate drug unknowingly.
Dianna Crippens was caring for her ill mother when she purchased a prescription medication for her mother at a Sav On Drug Store in Nevada. Unbeknownst to Crippens, the Pharmacist allegedly filled the prescription with a drug other than the one prescribed. Crippens administered the drug to her mother. As she continued to do so, her mother became incoherent and passed into hypoglycemic shock. This allegedly happened while Crippens watched. The drug reaction left her mother permanently disabled.
Crippens sued Sav On, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress. In addition to this, she also claimed she was damaged by the pharmacist's alleged failure to follow Nev. Rev. Stat. 3 639.266, which requires a pharmacist to communicate proper use instructions for prescription drugs. The trial court granted Sav On summary judgment which was appealed by Crippens.
The dismissal of Crippen's emotional distress claim was reversed by the Supreme Court and remanded that claim for trial. Because of the pharmacist's negligence, Crippens purchased the wrong drug and unknowingly poisoned her mother while administering the drug. Although a jury would ultimately decide if Crippens damage claims were meritorious, it was "entirely" foreseeable that the drug would harm the patient and that a caretaker would continue administration until the ultimate catastrophic result was realized.
However, Crippens' claim based on 0 639.266 failed. The statute applied to drug users, not persons who observe the adverse effects of a negligently dispensed prescription. Further, Crippens claim was based upon Sav On allegedly giving the wrong drug, not a failure to communicate proper instructions.
Two judges dissented to the majority's decision to allow Crippens to bring a negligent infliction of emotional distress, with one judge characterizing the majority opinion as "radical and unprecedented."
