Court Revives Negligence Case Against Walgreens

The Oregon Court of Appeals has recently reversed the dismissal of a case against several health care providers and Walgreens Pharmacy and remanded the case for a jury trial. The issue is particularly interesting because the plaintiff was injured by someone else who had been treated by the health care providers and the pharmacy. The plaintiff herself had no relation to the health care providers or pharmacy.

Just the Facts

Ms S was struck and killed by a vehicle while she was riding her bicycle. The vehicle was being driven by Ms W who was under the influence of medications prescribed by various health care professionals and dispensed by Walgreens. Ms S’s family sued the healthcare practitioners of Ms. W and the pharmacy that filled her medications.

The complaint alleged that the defendant health care providers violated their standards of care by prescribing large quantities of addictive drugs in excess amounts to Ms W without appropriate medical reasons and despite knowing that Ms W was abusing the drugs. The plaintiff alleged that the conduct of the health care providers foreseeably caused Ms W to develop a substance abuse disorder and foreseeably created a risk that she would drive under the influence of the prescribed drugs and injure a third party, such as Ms S.

The plaintiff alleged that Walgreens’ pharmacists violated their standard of care by continuing to dispense medications to Ms W despite knowing that she had a substance abuse disorder and was misusing the medication. The plaintiff claimed that it was foreseeable that Walgreens’ pharmacists conduct created a risk that Ms W would drive impaired and harm someone.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, claiming that because Ms S (the injured party) was not the defendants’ patient, they owed her no duty of care, and thus were under no obligation to avoid creating a foreseeable risk of injury to her. The trial judge agreed and dismissed the case.

The Appeal

The plaintiff appealed and argued that the defendants’ status as medical providers does not insulate them from the obligation that all people have not to unreasonably create foreseeable risks of physical harm to others. In response, the defendants argued that except in very limited circumstances, doctors and pharmacists only owe a duty to their patients.

The appeals court ultimately held that the trial court had erred in dismissing the case and reversed the lower court’s decision. In its decision, the Court of Appeals wrote “it will be for the jury to decide as to each defendant whether the defendant’s conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of the subsequent conduct and the type of harm that resulted from it.”

Reference

Stone v Witt. 331 Or App 722 (Or Ct App 2024).