Richardson v. Miller

44 S.W.3d 1 (2000)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Richardson v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Tennessee
44 S.W.3d 1 (2000)


Cynthia Richardson became pregnant and sought prenatal care from Dr. James Miller (defendant). Thereafter, Richardson complained of rapid heartbeats, palpitations, and shortness of breath. Miller referred Richardson to Dr. James Ward, Jr., a cardiologist who placed Richardson on a heart monitor for 24 hours to monitor her heart rhythms. Nothing significant was found by Ward who reported to Miller that Richardson’s prenatal care did not need to be modified. When Richardson was 35-weeks pregnant, she went into labor and was admitted to the hospital. Miller ordered bed rest and administered drugs to stop the labor. When one particular medication failed to stop Richardson’s labor, Miller ordered the administration of terbutaline, a drug that had only been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat asthma. After taking two doses of the drug, Richardson experienced chest pain and refused to take any further dose. Miller examined Richardson, noted that her labor had not stopped, and then recommended the use of an infusion pump to administer the terbutaline subcutaneously. Miller had little experience in the use of terbutaline infusion pumps. Tokos Medical Corporation (Tokos), the supplier of the infusion pump, sent a nurse to instruct Richardson and hospital nursing staff concerning the use of the pump. Over the next 48 hours, Richardson received regular subcutaneous doses of terbutaline, but the drug did not stop Richardson’s contractions initially. By the time Richardson’s labor had stopped, she complained of having a rapid heartbeat. Shortly thereafter, Richardson had a heart attack and then delivered a healthy baby. She required cardiac bypass surgery to alleviate heart damage. Richardson and her husband (plaintiffs) filed suit against the infusion pump supplier, Tokos and Miller (defendants) for his alleged negligence in using the terbutaline infusion pump as a treatment to stop premature labor. Prior to trial, Miller moved to prevent Richardson from introducing into evidence any information from terbutaline’s package insert and the Physician’s Desk Reference (“PDR”) indicating that the drug had not been approved by the FDA for use in stopping premature labor. The PDR is an encyclopedia of medications written from product inserts and published annually and provided to all practicing physicians. The trial court granted Miller’s motion and the jury subsequently found for Miller and Tokos. Richardson appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Koch, Jr., J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 748,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership