Skip to main content

Bad Prescription Case Against Target Goes Badly

By William Vogeler, Esq. on October 27, 2017 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Frank Andrews got his prescription at Target.

Unfortunately, the dosage was ten times the prescribed amount and he suffered renal failure. He lost his negligence suit because he failed to present timely expert evidence and other reasons in Andrews v. Target Pharmacy..

Maybe this is why you shouldn't necessarily buy prescriptions at the same counter where you buy household cleansers. Be careful where you find your lawyer, too.

Expert Testimony

The case started to unravel in pretrial discovery. The plaintiff, joined by his wife in the litigation, missed the date to identify an expert witness.

The defendant moved to preclude expert testimony, but the trial judge gave the plaintiff another chance with a new deadline.

Plaintiff identified an expert, but did not provide the expert's report. The trial judge allowed the plaintiff to submit one later, but excluded any new expert evidence.

The plaintiff moved to reopen discovery, and the defendant moved for summary judgment. The judge denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's.

Disregarded Deadlines

On appeal, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals said the plaintiff did too little too late.

"Here, the district court exhibited extraordinary patience in the face of persistent disregard of discovery deadlines," the court said. "By and large, the plaintiffs rewarded the district court's patience by turning a blind eye to their court-imposed obligations."

Judge Bruce M. Selya, a literary type, noticed the plaintiff mistakenly named the defendant. There's no such entity as "Target Pharmacy," he said in a footnote.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard