This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Hamilton (P) sued D, a prescription drug manufacturer claiming that D provided 'inadequate and inappropriate warnings and instruction for use' of its prescription drug Remicade. P suffered a lupus-like syndrome from the drug. P amended their claims and added Bullen (D1) the prescribing and treating physicians as defendants. P alleged that P's medical providers failed to adequately warn P of the risks associated with Remicade and failed to obtain her informed consent to the treatment. In the course of her prescribed treatments, D1 showed P an informational video that he received from D. P alleged that the video over-emphasized the benefits of Remicade and intentionally omitted warnings about the potential side effect of lupus-like syndrome. P argued that the video bypassed the physician-patient relationship and required D to warn P directly. The jury awarded $4.6 million. The court of appeals reversed the award of future pain and mental anguish damages but affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment, adopted an advertising exception to the learned intermediary doctrine. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.