Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Association v. Fisons Corp.

Supreme Court of Washington · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConsumer Protection ActProduct LiabilityDiscovery SanctionsPreemptionEvidenceAttorney's FeesCR 26(g)

Facts

Dr. Klicpera prescribed Fisons's theophylline-based medication to a child who then suffered seizures and severe permanent brain damage. In later discovery, documents surfaced showing Fisons had earlier knowledge of life-threatening theophylline toxicity in children with viral infections and had not fully disclosed those materials in discovery. After settlements extinguished contribution claims involving the child's suit, the recaptioned action went to trial on Dr. Klicpera's own claims for reputational and pain-and-suffering damages and on WSPIE's attempt to recover settlement money. The jury awarded Dr. Klicpera damages, including for professional reputation and pain and suffering, and the trial court awarded CPA attorney's fees but denied discovery sanctions.

Issue

May a prescribing physician sue a drug manufacturer under the Consumer Protection Act for injury to professional reputation caused by the manufacturer's failure to warn, and may the physician recover personal pain-and-suffering damages under the Product Liability Act? Also, did the trial court err on related issues including WSPIE's CPA claim, exclusion of habit evidence, preemption, damages, attorney's fees, and discovery sanctions?

Rule

A physician targeted by a drug manufacturer's marketing and warnings has standing to bring a CPA claim for injury to business or property, including professional reputation, but the CPA does not allow recovery for personal injuries or pain and suffering. The Washington Product Liability Act provides the exclusive cause of action for product-related harms and supplants common-law negligence claims, but under these facts it does not permit a physician to recover emotional pain and suffering arising from injury to a patient. Under CR 26(g), attorneys signing discovery responses certify, after reasonable inquiry judged by an objective standard, that the responses comply with the rules and are not improper or unduly burdensome; if that certification is violated, sanctions are mandatory.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Alder Biologics promoted a prescription inhaler directly to pulmonologists while omitting internal data showing a severe interaction with a common pediatric virus. Dr. Nina Patel prescribed the drug to a child, and after the child was injured, referrals to Dr. Patel dropped because other doctors in the area viewed her as careless. She sues Alder Biologics under Washington's Consumer Protection Act for damage to her professional reputation.

Which is the strongest argument that Dr. Patel has standing under the Act?

Explanation. The majority held that a prescribing physician may have CPA standing even though the physician is not the direct purchaser or ultimate consumer. In the prescription-drug context, warnings and marketing are directed to physicians under the learned intermediary relationship, making the physician a logical private attorney general. The physician's professional reputation qualifies as injury to business or property, unlike personal injury damages.