Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Maine Supreme Judicial Court
748 A.2d 961 (2000)



When 80-year-old Antoinette Walter (plaintiff) was diagnosed with cancer, her oncologist, Stephen Ross, prescribed Chlorambucil, a generic chemotherapy drug with the brand name Leukeran. Walter had the prescription filled at a Wal-Mart store in Maine. The pharmacist, Henry Lovin, did not fill Walter’s prescription with Chlorambucil or Leukeran, but rather with Melphalen, a far stronger chemotherapy drug. Because of its strength and detrimental effects, Melphalen was prescribed in smaller doses, for shorter periods, than Chlorambucil. Lovin did not counsel Walter about Melphalen, but she was provided an information sheet on the drug. After taking the dosage prescribed by Ross, Walter began to experience nausea, bruising, and rashes. She waited a few days to contact Ross even though the information sheet advised contacting a physician if the patient experienced bruising or rashes. Ross instructed her to stop the medication. That same day, she was hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding. In the hospital for five weeks, Walter had several infections, was unable to eat, and experienced other problems associated with a weakened immune system. When she left the hospital, she was considerably weaker and suffering from depression. The Melphalen did put her cancer into remission, however. Walter’s medical bills amounted to $71,042.63. She sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (defendant) for malpractice. At trial, Lovin testified that by dispensing the wrong drug without undergoing appropriate checks and without speaking directly with Walter, he had failed to meet the standard of care for pharmacists. Lovin also testified that Walter had no reason to doubt that she had received the correct drug. At the close of Walter’s case, the judge granted her judgment as a matter of law; a jury awarded her $550,000. Wal-Mart appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Calkins, J.)

Concurrence (Wathan, 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 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial