Does this mean that “corresponding responsibility” has NO LEGAL STANDING ?
In this case, the CVS defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint insofar as asserted against them. The CVS defendants established their prima facie
entitlement to judgment as amatter of lawthrough the submission of expert evidence demonstrating
that theydid not undertake to render any professional judgment in filling the decedent’s prescription,
that the prescription was filled precisely as directed by the prescribing physician, and that the
prescription was not “so clearly contraindicated” that ordinary prudence required the pharmacist to
take additional measures before dispensing the medication (see generally Doria v Benisch, 130
AD3d 777, 778; Smolian v Port Authority ofN.Y.&N.J., 128AD3d 796, 801;Montagnino v Inamed
Corp., 120 AD3d 1317, 1318; Kelley v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 100 AD3d 600, 600). In this
regard, the CVS defendants demonstrated that the dosage that was prescribed was appropriate for
the decedent, that the prescription did not exceed that drugmanufacturer’smaximum recommended
dosage, and that, given the information available to the CVS defendants, the generally accepted
standards in the community did not require the pharmacist to take any additional measures before
filling the prescription (accord N.X. v CabriniMed. Ctr., 97 NY2d at 255; Toth v Community Hosp.
at Glen Cove, 22 NY2d at 265 n 3). Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it was
entirely appropriate for the CVS defendants to rely upon the expert opinions of individuals who are
defendants in the case (see e.g.Hayden vGordon, 91AD3d 819, 821;Graziano vCooling, 79AD3d
803, 804; Belak-Redl v Bollengier, 74 AD3d 1110, 1111).
www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/…/D45647.pdf
Filed under: General Problems
Leave a Reply