For decades, both state and federal courts in Michigan have routinely applied the learned intermediary doctrine in products liability cases involving prescription medical products. Under the doctrine, a manufacturer’s duty to warn runs not to a plaintiff but to the plaintiff’s prescribing physician. Although “[e]very state in the country, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, has adopted the learned intermediary doctrine in some iteration,” Dearinger v. Eli Lilly & Co., 510 P.3d 326, 329 (Wash. 2022) — including courts applying Michigan law — a Michigan federal court recently expressed doubt about the doctrine’s applicability and certified a question to the Michigan Supreme Court. The answer, if the court accepts the question, should be clear — yes, Michigan applies the learned intermediary doctrine.
In Osos v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 23-CV-12331, 2024 WL 3585092 (E.D. Mich. July 30, 2024), the plaintiff alleged injury from an implantable medical device manufactured by the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which among other things argued that the plaintiff’s failure to warn claim was barred by the learned intermediary doctrine because she had not alleged any failure to warn the implanting surgeon. 2023 WL 9322029 (motion to dismiss). The plaintiff did not take issue with the learned intermediary doctrine in general but argued that, because she alleged that the implanting surgeon was an inventor of the product and an agent of the defendant, there was no true “intermediary” between the defendant and the plaintiff. 2023 WL 11081568 (opposition). Thus, according to the plaintiff, the case represented an exception to the learned intermediary doctrine.
Continue reading “Yes, Michigan Applies the Learned Intermediary Doctrine”