In cases where a patient suffers an injury as the result of a prescribed medication, the patient's most viable claims are often against the drug manufacturer and the prescribing physician. If a patient develops rhabdomyolysis after using statins the patient may have a claim based on the theory that the drug manufacturer and/or the physician failed to properly warn the patient of statin's dangers.

A plaintiff in an action against a drug manufacturer for failure to warn of side effects may have three theories of recovery - negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. In a negligence action, the court considers the liability of a drug manufacturer in terms of duty. The question the court considers is whether the manufacturer had a duty to warn, whether the manufacturer breached the duty, and whether the drug manufacturer's breach of duty caused the injury. In a strict liability action the court assumes that the manufacturer knew the defects of the drug, whether or not the manufacturer had actual knowledge of the side effects. Under strict liability, plaintiff needs to establish that the danger of the drug manufacturer's failure to adequately warn of side effects associated with a prescription drug rendered the drug unreasonably dangerous and therefore defective.

Regardless of the theory on which a plaintiff relies, the plaintiff must establish that the drug manufacturer had a duty to warn either the medical profession or, under limited circumstances, the consumer, of side effects; the standard of care the law requires the drug manufacturer to adhere to in fulfilling its duty to warn; breach of the drug manufacturer's duty to warn by providing an inadequate warning; injury suffered the plaintiff suffered attributable to the manufacturer's failure to warn; and the injury the drug manufacturer's failure to warn caused.

The duty of the drug manufacturer to warn of a prescription drug's side effects arises from the manufacturer's knowledge of the special risks of harm associated with normal use of the drug. Thus, in order to establish a duty to warn of side effects, the plaintiff must prove that use of the prescription drug in question subjected the plaintiff to a risk of injury and that the manufacturer had actual or constructive knowledge of the risk.

In an action against a physician for malpractice in prescribing drugs or medicines, the plaintiff must prove that the doctor failed to exercise reasonable care in prescribing the drug and that the failure resulted in injury to the plaintiff. In cases in which a doctor prescribed a statin in combination with a drug known to exacerbate the risk of rhabdomyolysis or to a patient already at risk for rhabdomyolysis, a plaintiff has a particularly viable claim.

A prescribing physician must remain abreast of the characteristics and potential side effects of the drug the doctor prescribes including statin, the amount of the drug that a patient can safely ingest, and the different medications the patient takes. The prescribing physician must also advise the patient of any dangers or side effects associated with the use of the drug as well as how and when to take the drug. Failure to fulfill any of these obligations may provide sufficient grounds for a malpractice claim against the prescribing physician.

The plaintiff in an action against a drug manufacturer or physician for failure to warn of side effects associated with statin may recover for personal injury and other consequential damages including pain and suffering, long term disability, nursing care, other medical expenses, and loss of earnings. In cases against a manufacturer based on a theory of strict liability, rather than negligence, a plaintiff may not recover damages for emotional distress and mental anguish.

The spouse of a person injured as a result of a drug manufacturer or physician's failure to warn of side effects may also recover consequential damages. If a drug manufacturer's failure to warn of side effects results in the death of a person who used statin, a plaintiff may recover damages for wrongful death.

In some cases a plaintiff may recover punitive damages. For a plaintiff to recover punitive damages, the manufacturer must have acted with malice or reckless indifference to the consequences of distributing a dangerous drug without sufficient warning.

The law limits the amount of time after a patient incurs an injury for the patient to file suit. The amount of time varies based on the theory of liability and the state in which patient files the suit. If you have suffered an injury as the result of statin use consult a qualified attorney in order to protect your rights.

Contact Us if you have taken a drug that caused your Rhabdomyolysis