Solodyn medicis medisave program

The court found that the LID could apply if Medicis can establish that it provided complete and adequate warnings to the prescribing providers. The high court affirmed the appeals court finding that the CFA was applicable to the case because prescription pharmaceuticals are considered merchandise under the act. The case is Amanda Watts v. Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc.

The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use.

Arizona Supreme Court Opinion of Watts v. In April , Watts, a minor at the time, sought medical treatment for chronic acne. That insert warned that patients should consult a doctor if symptoms did not improve within 12 weeks. Watts does not allege that she received either the U. Contrary to the MediSAVE card and insert Watts received, the full prescribing information warns specifically that lupus-like syndrome and autoimmune hepatitis are possible results associated with the "long-term" use of minocycline.

It also warns, in a section labeled "Patient Counseling Information," that patients should be advised:. Autoimmune syndromes, including drug-induced lupus-like syndrome, autoimmune hepatitis, vasculitis and serum sickness have been observed with tetracycline-class drugs, including minocycline.

Symptoms may be manifested by arthralgia joint pain , fever, rash and malaise. Patients who experience such symptoms should be cautioned to stop the drug immediately and seek medical help. Plaintiff sued Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, which manufactures and distributes Solodyn, alleging that Medicis knowingly represented and omitted material facts in connection with the sale or advertisement of Solodyn in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act CFA.

Plaintiff also alleged that Medicis failed to adequately warn her of the consequences of the long-term use of Solodyn. At issue on appeal was the learned intermediary doctrine LID , under which a manufacturer satisfies its duty to warn end users by giving appropriate warnings to the class of persons who may prescribe or administer the product.

Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court.