多少信息才足够?了解阿拉巴马州最高法院在未警告索赔中扩大因果关系标准。

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW American Journal of Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1017/amj.2023.21
Allison Herr
{"title":"多少信息才足够?了解阿拉巴马州最高法院在未警告索赔中扩大因果关系标准。","authors":"Allison Herr","doi":"10.1017/amj.2023.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This RCD analyzes the Alabama Supreme Court's recent answer to two certified questions sent to the court from the Eleventh Circuit. The questions involved whether a pharmaceutical company's duty to warn included a duty to provide instructions about how to properly mitigate for warned of risks, and if the pharmaceutical company had such a duty could a plaintiff recover if their physician would have prescribed the same drug but just changed their monitoring scheme. The Alabama Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative, expanding the causation standard in failure to warn claims.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"49 1","pages":"128-133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Much Information is Enough? Understanding the Alabama Supreme Court's Expansion of the Causation Standard in Failure to Warn Claims.\",\"authors\":\"Allison Herr\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/amj.2023.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This RCD analyzes the Alabama Supreme Court's recent answer to two certified questions sent to the court from the Eleventh Circuit. The questions involved whether a pharmaceutical company's duty to warn included a duty to provide instructions about how to properly mitigate for warned of risks, and if the pharmaceutical company had such a duty could a plaintiff recover if their physician would have prescribed the same drug but just changed their monitoring scheme. The Alabama Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative, expanding the causation standard in failure to warn claims.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"128-133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2023.21\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2023.21","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本RCD分析了阿拉巴马州最高法院最近对第十一巡回法院发送给法院的两个认证问题的回答。这些问题涉及制药公司的警告义务是否包括提供关于如何适当减轻警告风险的指示的义务,以及如果制药公司有这样的义务,如果他们的医生开的是同样的药,只是改变了他们的监测方案,原告是否可以得到赔偿。阿拉巴马州最高法院对这两个问题的回答都是肯定的,扩大了未能警告索赔的因果关系标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Much Information is Enough? Understanding the Alabama Supreme Court's Expansion of the Causation Standard in Failure to Warn Claims.

This RCD analyzes the Alabama Supreme Court's recent answer to two certified questions sent to the court from the Eleventh Circuit. The questions involved whether a pharmaceutical company's duty to warn included a duty to provide instructions about how to properly mitigate for warned of risks, and if the pharmaceutical company had such a duty could a plaintiff recover if their physician would have prescribed the same drug but just changed their monitoring scheme. The Alabama Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative, expanding the causation standard in failure to warn claims.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
期刊最新文献
A Protected Class, An Unprotected Condition, and A Biomarker - A Method/Formula for Increased Diversity in Clinical Trials for the African American Subject with Benign Ethnic Neutropenia (BEN) - CORRIGENDUM. "The Timeless Explosion of Fantasy's Dream": How State Courts Have Ignored the Supreme Court's Decision in Panetti v. Quarterman - ERRATUM. Mental Health Matters: A Look At Abortion Law Post-Dobbs - ERRATUM. Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. How The "Great Resignation" and COVID Unemployment Have Eroded the Employer Sponsored Insurance Model and Access to Healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1