Annette Lorraine Anderson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Mcneilab, Inc., D/b/a Mcneil Pharmaceutical, Defendant-appellee, 831 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1987)

Annette Anderson, joined by her husband, appeals an adverse summary judgment entered in her Louisiana diversity action against the defendant manufacturer of Zomax, a prescription drug. Zomax was prescribed by a physician for her use, when needed, for sinus problems. No sooner had she taken the first dose than she suffered a severe reaction, with--she claims--resulting residual damage to her heart.¹  We affirm.

Counsel for the Andersons defines as his sole issue advanced on appeal:

Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the adequacy of a warning accompanying a prescription drug.

We reject this suggestion that a mere allegation of inadequacy in the warning of side effects on a prescription drug makes a jury issue. This case itself is illustrative of why we do so.

It is undisputed that the defendant--by means of drug package inserts, the Zomax listing in the Physician's Desk Reference, and broadcast letters to physicians--repeatedly warned against prescribing Zomax for persons, such as Mrs. Anderson, who suffer from aspirin sensitivity. Under Louisiana law, a drug manufacturer has discharged its duty to consumers of its prescription drugs when it has reasonably informed prescribing physicians of the dangers of harm from such a drug. Cobb v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 444 So. 2d 203 (La.App.1983). We agree with the trial court that the means and the warning presented here were sufficient as a matter of law.² 

AFFIRMED.