§

Harden v. Danek Medical, Inc.

985 S.W.2d 449 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)
Harden v. Danek Medical, Inc.

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. The Learned Intermediary Doctrine: An Update

    Frost Brown Todd LLCElise N. McQuainDecember 19, 2018

    [17]Incollingo v. Ewing, 282 A.2d 206, 220 (Pa. 1971); Baldino v. Castagna, 478 A.2d 807, 812 (Pa. 1984).[18]Hahn v. Richter, 628 A.2d 860, 866 (Pa. 1993), aff'd, 673 A.2d 888 (Pa. Supr. Ct. 1996).[19]Id.[20]Pittman v. Upjohn Co., 890 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Tenn. 1994).[21]Harden v. Danek Med., Inc., 985 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).[22]Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 686, 701 (Tenn. 2011); Whitehead v. Dycho Co., 775 S.W.2d 593, 598 (Tenn. 1989); Laws v. Johnson, 799 S.W.2d 249 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

  2. The Learned Intermediary Doctrine

    Frost Brown Todd LLCCarol SmithMay 1, 2012

    17Pittman v. Upjohn, 890 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. 1994); King v. Danek Med., Inc. 985 S.W.2d 499 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998). 18Harden v. Danek Medical, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 449 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998). 19Laws v. Johnson, 799 S.W.2d 249 (Tenn.App. 1990).20Id., at 700-704.