Schaerrer v. Stewart’s Plaza Pharmacy, Inc.
Utah Supreme Court
79 P.3d 922 (2003)

- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Schaerrer (plaintiff) experienced nausea, chest pains, and dizziness after taking compounded extended-release versions of prescription diet drugs. The compounded drugs cut down on the number of times a day Schaerrer was required to take pills from four to one. Schaerrer brought a strict product-liability action against Stewart’s Plaza Pharmacy, Inc., the compounding pharmacy, and its pharmacist (defendants). Schaerrer alleged that the pharmacy and its pharmacist were strictly liable for failing to warn Schaerrer of the risks of taking the drugs and alternatively that they were strictly liable as a manufacturer for the compounded drugs. The trial court granted summary judgment for the pharmacy, and Schaerrer appealed. Schaerrer argued that the pharmacy exceeded the bounds of appropriate compounding pharmacist behavior by creating and distributing to local physicians to share with their patients a new drug before the pharmacy received a valid prescription order for the compounded drugs. The pharmacy argued that because it cannot dispense prescription drugs without a doctor’s order, it was not a manufacturer but rather a pharmacist attempting to improve compliance within a small group of patients through legitimate marketing efforts and that it should be immune from strict-liability suits.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.