Id. at 933. In finding the learned intermediary rule applicable, the Walker court relied squarely on a Georgia Court of Appeals decision, Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 314 S.E.2d 680 (1984), which extended the learned intermediary rule to nurses under Georgia law. The plaintiff in Singleton died after developing malignant hyperthermia, a known adverse effect of an anesthetizing agent manufactured by the defendant.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 664 ( 314 S.E.2d 680) (1984); see also Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga. App. 481, 482-483 (1) ( 249 S.E.2d 286) (1978); Parke, Davis Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga. App. 224 ( 183 S.E.2d 410) (1971). The plaintiffs mistakenly claim that Carter v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 217 Ga. App. 139 ( 456 S.E.2d 661) (1995) weakens this rule.
Further, even assuming Dettelbach did have a duty to warn as Stiltjes contends, it is undisputed that the labels in question, which include precautionary statements concerning potential hazards to humans on contact with the pesticides, meet federal labelling requirements under the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, 7 USCA §§ 136 (a)-136 (y) ("FIFRA"), thus satisfying any duty to warn on Dettelbach's part. See Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 664 ( 314 S.E.2d 680) (1984); Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 249 S.E.2d 286) (1978); Webb v. Sandoz Chem. Works, 85 Ga. App. 405, 409 (2) ( 69 S.E.2d 689) (1952). See also 7 USCA § 136v (b); National Agricultural Chem. Assn. v. Rominger, 500 F. Supp. 465 (D.C. Cal., 1980).
If the warning was adequate, the inquiry ends, and the plaintiff cannot recover. See Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga.App. 662, 314 S.E.2d 680, 682 (1984). If the warning is inadequate, or merely presumed to be, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the deficient warning proximately caused the alleged injury to prevail.
Instead, "`in the case of prescription drugs, a warning as to possible danger in its use to the prescribing physician is sufficient.'" Presto, 226 Ga. App. at 548, 487 S.E.2d 70 (quoting Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga.App. 662, 664, 314 S.E.2d 680 (1984) and citing Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga.App. 481, 249 S.E.2d 286 (1978) and Parke, Davis, Co. v. Mayes, 124 Ga.App. 224, 183 S.E.2d 410 (1971)). In addition, the Georgia courts have decided that "[t]his special standard for prescription drugs is an understandable exception to the . . . general rule that one who markets goods must warn foreseeable ultimate users of dangers inherent in his products."
"If the warning was adequate, the inquiry ends, and the plaintiff cannot recover." Id. (citing Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 664 (1984)). But, if the warning is inadequate, "the plaintiff must demonstrate that the deficient warning proximately caused the alleged injury to prevail."
Dietz, 598 F.3d at 815 (citing Wheat, 46 F. Supp. 2d at 1363). Id. (citing Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 314 S.E.2d 680, 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)). Id. (citing Wheat, 46 F.Supp.2d at 1363).
Bard contends that it did not have a duty to warn about particular product characteristics, such as pore size, or particular raw materials, such as polypropylene. (Id.). Bard misconstrues its duty to warn about risks associated with the Avaulta Plus. Bard had a duty to warn about "any potential dangers that may result" from use of the product. Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 314 S.E.2d 680, 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). That pores are a particular size or that the product used particular raw materials are not necessarily risks associated with product use.
Ordinarily, in cases of prescription drugs and devices, "the manufacturer's duty to warn is limited to an obligation to advise the prescribing physician of any potential dangers that may result" from use. Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 662, 664 (1984) (citations omitted). In performing this duty, the manufacturer must provide the physician with a warning that is "adequate or reasonable under the circumstances of the case."
Pursuant to the learned intermediary rule, "the manufacturer of a prescription drug is not normally required to directly warn the patient of dangers in its use. `Ordinarily, in the case of prescription drugs, a warning as to possible danger in its use to the prescribing physician is sufficient.'" Id. at 73 (citingSingleton v. Airco, Inc., 314 S.E.2d 680 (Ga.App. 1984);Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 249 S.E.2d 286 (Ga.App. 1978); Parke, Davis Co. v. Mayes, 183 S.E.2d 410 (Ga.App. 1971)). The court noted that