## Facts

- Jacquelyn Morgan and Charles Pettus sought treatment for their son, Cameron Pettus, for behavioral symptoms associated with ADHD and mood swings.
- A psychologist recommended Desipramine, and a physician prescribed it after discussing medication options with Morgan.
- Cameron’s prescription was initially filled at another pharmacy and later refilled at a Wal-Mart pharmacy pursuant to the physician’s orders.
- Wal-Mart pharmacists dispensed Desipramine as prescribed; the refill at issue was filled by a pharmacist familiar with tricyclic antidepressants and common side effects.
- Cameron died in 1993; his parents alleged Desipramine caused a fatal cardiac arrhythmia.
- The parents sued Wal-Mart for negligence, asserting the pharmacy failed to warn them or the prescriber about serious risks associated with Desipramine in children, including cardiotoxicity and sudden death.
- A jury found Wal-Mart negligent for failure to warn and awarded $1,012,000 in actual damages plus interest.
- Wal-Mart appealed, arguing Texas law imposed no such duty on a pharmacist who accurately fills a valid prescription.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Texas law and the learned intermediary doctrine, a pharmacist who properly fills a valid prescription owes a duty to warn the patient or prescriber of potential adverse drug reactions.
2. Whether alleged pharmacy knowledge of serious risks associated with a prescribed drug creates “special circumstances” imposing a duty to warn or otherwise intervene.

## Decision

- The court reversed the judgment for the plaintiffs and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Wal-Mart.
- The court held that Texas law does not impose a general duty on pharmacists to warn customers (or prescribing physicians) about potential adverse reactions when the prescription is valid and correctly filled.
- The court concluded the duty to warn of prescription-drug risks rests with the prescribing physician, consistent with the learned intermediary doctrine.
- The court rejected arguments that Cameron’s age or Wal-Mart’s alleged access to risk information created a legal duty to warn under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Under the learned intermediary doctrine, the prescribing physician bears primary responsibility to evaluate prescription-drug risks and benefits and to advise the patient; the pharmacist is not generally required to provide warnings about adverse effects for a properly dispensed prescription.
- A negligence claim fails as a matter of law absent a recognized legal duty; where no pharmacist duty to warn exists, a failure-to-warn verdict cannot stand.
- Pharmacists have duties to accurately fill prescriptions and to address obvious, facial problems in a prescription (e.g., clear errors or discrepancies), but not to second-guess prescribing decisions or provide comprehensive medical risk counseling for each prescription.
- “Special circumstances” sufficient to create a pharmacist duty require more than generalized access to professional literature or manufacturer information and more than the patient’s status as a minor.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that, when a pharmacist accurately fills a valid prescription, Texas law generally places the duty to warn of prescription-drug dangers on the prescribing physician rather than the pharmacy, requiring judgment for the pharmacy on the parents’ failure-to-warn negligence claim.


Morgan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 30 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000)