Browse/Search Our Legal Case Studies Library
Pharmacist Named in Suit for Filling Verr-Canth Prescription, Claimed to be Inappropriate for Rash
Teenager Diagnosed with Molluscum Contagiosum and Prescribed Verr-Canth to be Used at Home - Defendant Admits Fault, but Claims Pharmacy's Actions Were Intervening Cause - Pharmacy Settled for Undisclosed Amount-$3.5 Million Gross Verdict
The plaintiff, age fifteen at the time, was taken to an emergency room in December 2010 due to a rash. The plaintiff was seen by a physician, who diagnosed Molluscum Contagiosum. Verr-Canth .07% was prescribed and the prescription was filled at the defendant Pharmacy.
Soon after the medication was applied, the plaintiff’s skin began to burn. He developed large and weeping blisters across his body. He was promptly returned to the emergency room and then transferred to a burn center. His treatment included debridement and surgery. The plaintiff suffered a sixteen percent total body surface second-degree burns. The plaintiff suffered scarring on the chest, neck, torso, arms and feet and has sensitivity to hot and cold temperatures. He requires protective clothing and his vocational choices are limited.
The plaintiff claimed that the physician made the wrong diagnosis and that he had a common rash. The plaintiff also claimed that the prescription was not appropriate and that the drug required administration by a physician, not unsupervised use at home.
The plaintiff made claims against the defendant pharmacy which filled the prescription and the pharmacy settled for an undisclosed amount prior to trial.
The physician admitted fault, but maintained that the pharmacy’s action in filling the prescription was an intervening cause of the injury. The defendant physician also claimed that the plaintiff had not suffered bums, but only superficial injuries which would not result in permanent injury.
According to reports, a jury found the physician seventy-five percent at fault and the pharmacy twenty-five percent at fault. The jury awarded $3.5 million in damages.
No judgment had been entered. The recovery was subject to a $500,000 statutory non-economic damages addition, but it was uncertain how the apportionment of fault and statutory damage laws would be assessed.
With permission from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts; Lewis Laska, Editor, 901 Church St., Nashville, TN 37203-3411, 1-800-298-6288.