Also known as: learned intermediary doctrine · learned-intermediary defense · learned intermediary rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A products-liability doctrine under which a prescription-drug or medical-device manufacturer satisfies its duty to warn by providing adequate information to the prescribing physician rather than directly to the patient. The physician's independent medical judgment breaks the causal chain between manufacturer and patient unless the warnings to the physician were inadequate or misleading. Causation requires proof that an adequate warning would have altered the physician's prescribing decision.
Lucas Lee obtained a prescription for a new blood-pressure medication from his physician. The manufacturer had supplied the physician with detailed risk information about potential stroke complications. When Lucas suffered a stroke, his failure-to-warn claim against the manufacturer failed because the physician's independent judgment and receipt of the warnings severed any causal link to the patient.
Landon Long received an implanted cardiac device after his cardiologist reviewed the manufacturer's warnings. The device later malfunctioned. Long's suit against the manufacturer was dismissed because the duty to warn ran only to the physician, and no evidence showed that better warnings would have changed the implantation decision.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Levi Lowe underwent surgery for a spinal device after his surgeon received the manufacturer's risk disclosures. Lowe later sued, claiming the warnings were insufficient. The claim failed because generalized awareness of risks among physicians did not prove that a different warning would have altered the surgeon's choice to use the device.
No. The defense fails if the manufacturer did not provide adequate warnings to the physician. In that situation the causal chain remains intact and the manufacturer may still face liability.
Supporting sources
Yes. Causation under the doctrine requires proof that an adequate warning would have altered the prescribing decision. Generalized evidence that physicians knew of risks is insufficient.
Supporting sources
No. The defense does not apply when manufacturers know or should know that health-care providers will not be in a position to pass warnings along. Direct warnings to patients are then required.
Supporting sources
No. The doctrine concerns the allocation of a manufacturer's duty to warn in prescription-drug and medical-device cases. It does not govern ordinary retailer duties to inspect or warn about other products.
Supporting sources
…instructions on ways to safely use the product to avoid injury. Carole A. Cheney, Comment: Not Just for Doctors: Applying the Learned Intermediary Doctrine to the Relationship Between Chemical Manufacturers, Industrial Employers, and Employees , 85 Nw. U.L. Rev. 562, 566 (1991). See Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 426 N.W.2d 826, 834…