Hypothetical Lawsuit

[Sparda29]

So I found out that one of the survivors of the Colorado Movie Theater Massacre is suing multiple people. He is suing the theater for not having alarms on the emergency exit, Warner Brother's for making a movie with violence in it, and the doctors of the shooter for not adequately controlling him.

That last one got me thinking. Let's say you had a patient on a slew of psychiatric medications. Patient runs out of refills on his medications, it's the weekend, and you deny him a supply of medication to hold him over until the doctor calls in the refills. Patient then subsequently goes on a violent shooting spree like the Colorado shooter and kills and injures many people.

Would the pharmacist be liable for the entire thing since they denyed the shooter the medication that keeps them calm?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rxlea]

I don't think I would deny an established psych patient meds to get them through the weekend...and not just because I'm afraid of a lawsuit.

 

[Momus]

Don't think this will get anywhere... probably only emotional damage bla bla bla...

I got my own insurance for work $120/year... on top of employer provided malpractice insurance...

For people who are wealthy, you have to have umbrella policy to protect you from people like this. Up to $10M coverage is only $1500/year. You never know when people sue you and think you are a jackpot for them even though it has nothing to do with you. Most people think it won't happen to them, and it won't but when it does it can go up to $2-5M lawsuit really fast.

Another insurance to consider is disability. Most people will NOT have one, which I think is stupid. Yet, they have life insurance. And, I am not talking through employer disability insurance, you have to have your own. If your job goes, there goes your disability insurance as well. There is a 20% chance that 35 year old will become disabled before he turns 65, and 1 in 7 chance that he will be disabled for at least 5 years. This odds is bigger than dying prematurely. Imagine bringing in $0 for 5 years, that could wipe out your wealth relatively quickly. Your biggest financial asset is your future earning power, protect that.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

First of all, that lawsuit is likely bogus because the plaintiff wasn't injured and doesn't have any financial damages. I don't know if Colorado allows plaintiffs to sue for "emotional distress" or not, but many states don't.

Moreover, I think they would have difficulty establishing any liability anyway. This article summarizes why:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloo...ng-Victims-May-Have-Little-Chance-3730497.php

In your pharmacist example, I don't believe the pharmacist would have any liability. The pharmacist's DUTY is to follow the law and the pharmacist is within his/her rights to deny an unauthorized refill. If the pharmacist had reason to believe (other than "hunch") that the psychiatric patient was going to do something violent, there would be duty to report. I'm not saying that it's a good idea to deny psych patients refills, and I always loan while we call for authorization, but I'm not sure there's any legal liability for not doing so.

 

[rph3664]

I think someone's trying to jump on a gravy train, and for all the wrong reasons. 😡

It's almost impossible to get someone involuntarily committed unless they have demonstrated documentable danger to themselves or others, and even then, the treatment they will get is minimal at best.

A story was reported (its veracity is now a bit dubious) that when his mother woke up Friday morning and heard about the shooting, SHE called authorities in Aurora and said something like, "I have a son who lives there and is capable of this." This reminded me of David Kaczynski reading the Unabomber Manifesto and realizing his brother wrote it. 🙁

 

[BenJammin]

So I found out that one of the survivors of the Colorado Movie Theater Massacre is suing multiple people. He is suing the theater for not having alarms on the emergency exit, Warner Brother's for making a movie with violence in it, and the doctors of the shooter for not adequately controlling him.

That last one got me thinking. Let's say you had a patient on a slew of psychiatric medications. Patient runs out of refills on his medications, it's the weekend, and you deny him a supply of medication to hold him over until the doctor calls in the refills. Patient then subsequently goes on a violent shooting spree like the Colorado shooter and kills and injures many people.

Would the pharmacist be liable for the entire thing since they denyed the shooter the medication that keeps them calm?

How can you be liable for following the law? It's not your fault the patient didn't get their refills sooner. This is a big time yoga stretch my friend.

 

[pezdispenser]

I was working the graveyard shift in a store by myself once and a lady wanted to refill her blood pressure medications. I was getting slammed so I informed her that it would probably be an hour wait. She shouted back at me "An hour! I can't wait that long! I'm going to sue you if I have a heart attack or something!" I could barely keep a straight face. Luckily she stormed off, so I could let it out.

 

[MountainPharmD]

So I found out that one of the survivors of the Colorado Movie Theater Massacre is suing multiple people. He is suing the theater for not having alarms on the emergency exit, Warner Brother's for making a movie with violence in it, and the doctors of the shooter for not adequately controlling him.

That last one got me thinking. Let's say you had a patient on a slew of psychiatric medications. Patient runs out of refills on his medications, it's the weekend, and you deny him a supply of medication to hold him over until the doctor calls in the refills. Patient then subsequently goes on a violent shooting spree like the Colorado shooter and kills and injures many people.

Would the pharmacist be liable for the entire thing since they denyed the shooter the medication that keeps them calm?

No. If the prescriptions were out of refills then they were not valid refillable prescriptions. Therefore the pharmacist broke no law by refusing to fill the prescriptions. I would argue you would have more liability for filling them unless your state has a law that allows pharmacists to refill a prescription if they cannot get ahold of the doctor.

Devils advocate what happens if you give the patient a three day supply and they take all of them and overdose and all most die. They come back and sue you for filling an expired prescription.

 

[hereticmnk]

I was working the graveyard shift in a store by myself once and a lady wanted to refill her blood pressure medications. I was getting slammed so I informed her that it would probably be an hour wait. She shouted back at me "An hour! I can't wait that long! I'm going to sue you if I have a heart attack or something!" I could barely keep a straight face. Luckily she stormed off, so I could let it out.

Yeah I had a lady tell me that since we were out of WalMart brand Calcium pills, she would sue me when she got a "kidney stone" because she would miss her Calcium supplement. I just laughed at her face so hard
I do not care if someone is ignorant or sometimes when someone is a jerk. But often times when people are inflicted with a combination of both traits. I just cant help but laugh at these people...I often do.

 

[MountainPharmD]

So I found out that one of the survivors of the Colorado Movie Theater Massacre is suing multiple people. He is suing the theater for not having alarms on the emergency exit, Warner Brother's for making a movie with violence in it, and the doctors of the shooter for not adequately controlling him.

That last one got me thinking. Let's say you had a patient on a slew of psychiatric medications. Patient runs out of refills on his medications, it's the weekend, and you deny him a supply of medication to hold him over until the doctor calls in the refills. Patient then subsequently goes on a violent shooting spree like the Colorado shooter and kills and injures many people.

Would the pharmacist be liable for the entire thing since they denyed the shooter the medication that keeps them calm?

Do not forget this is America...You can sue anyone for anything! I would sue because of Cinamarks no gun policy which bans conceled carry permit holders from legally carring on their property. Cinamark should be held liable for failing to adequately protect their customers.

 

[BenJammin]

Do not forget this is America...You can sue anyone for anything! I would sue because of Cinamarks no gun policy which bans conceled carry permit holders from legally carring on their property. Cinamark should be held liable for failing to adequately protect their customers.

That's why I'm glad I live in Dallas. The only sign that has any legal merit are those 6 inch squared off signs in English and Spanish. "No guns allowed" signs don't hold up in court.

 

[Ackj]

Do not forget this is America...You can sue anyone for anything! I would sue because of Cinamarks no gun policy which bans conceled carry permit holders from legally carring on their property. Cinamark should be held liable for failing to adequately protect their customers.

Great point. If not for that sign, maybe a customer would have been able to return fire, and stop the shooter. However, they couldn't have a gun so they were unable to defend themselves, which lead to further deaths.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Great point. If not for that sign, maybe a customer would have been able to return fire, and stop the shooter. However, they couldn't have a gun so they were unable to defend themselves, which lead to further deaths.

Or the customer could have killed some innocent bystanders.

Anyway, the link I posted above explains why lawsuits against the theater (and others) are unlikely to succeed.

 

[Sparda29]

Great point. If not for that sign, maybe a customer would have been able to return fire, and stop the shooter. However, they couldn't have a gun so they were unable to defend themselves, which lead to further deaths.

I doubt it. Shooter was wearing body armor and a protective helmet. Most handguns would have only acted like a hard punch. Not to mention it was dark, smoke everywhere because of the smoke grenades, people running around and screaming, and pistols are less accurate than the AR-15 the shooter was carrying. Customer would have probably hit the shooter where he had body armor and missing the shooter would have probably meant that someone else gets shot. Or if you had like 5-6 people with concealed carry permits all shooting, it's possible that they might have shot at each other thinking that they were the bad guys.

I'm just baffled as why the shooter gave himself up to the authorities. It would have been very easy to get away with it. In the chaos, slip behind the screen, take off the body armor and stuff, maybe even shoot himself in the arm/leg, and crawl out of the theater as if he was one of the victims.

 

[MountainPharmD]

That's why I'm glad I live in Dallas. The only sign that has any legal merit are those 6 inch squared off signs in English and Spanish. "No guns allowed" signs don't hold up in court.

Yep in Texas the 30.06 sign has to be posted. I have never seen one down here.

 

[Ackj]

Yep in Texas the 30.06 sign has to be posted. I have never seen one down here.

That's a rather ironic code. Does it apply to carrying a .30-06 too?

 

[MountainPharmD]

I doubt it. Shooter was wearing body armor and a protective helmet. Most handguns would have only acted like a hard punch. Not to mention it was dark, smoke everywhere because of the smoke grenades, people running around and screaming, and pistols are less accurate than the AR-15 the shooter was carrying. Customer would have probably hit the shooter where he had body armor and missing the shooter would have probably meant that someone else gets shot. Or if you had like 5-6 people with concealed carry permits all shooting, it's possible that they might have shot at each other thinking that they were the bad guys.

I'm just baffled as why the shooter gave himself up to the authorities. It would have been very easy to get away with it. In the chaos, slip behind the screen, take off the body armor and stuff, maybe even shoot himself in the arm/leg, and crawl out of the theater as if he was one of the victims.

The shooter was not wearing body armour or a bullet proof vest.. It is illegal for civillians to buy bullet proof vests or body armour. He ordered everything other than the guns online. As reported by the media, after they erroneously stated he was wearing body armour, he was wearing a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest. This is not bullet resistant. It is a vest for holding ammunition.

If you were sitting in a movie theater and some idiot starts shooting people would you rather have a gun and a chance to defend yourself and save your life or would you rather sit there and die?

 

[MountainPharmD]

That's a rather ironic code. Does it apply to carrying a .30-06 too?

Yep...I wonder if they did it on purpose?

 

[cycloketocaine]

I doubt it. Shooter was wearing body armor and a protective helmet. Most handguns would have only acted like a hard punch. Not to mention it was dark, smoke everywhere because of the smoke grenades, people running around and screaming, and pistols are less accurate than the AR-15 the shooter was carrying. Customer would have probably hit the shooter where he had body armor and missing the shooter would have probably meant that someone else gets shot. Or if you had like 5-6 people with concealed carry permits all shooting, it's possible that they might have shot at each other thinking that they were the bad guys.

I'm just baffled as why the shooter gave himself up to the authorities. It would have been very easy to get away with it. In the chaos, slip behind the screen, take off the body armor and stuff, maybe even shoot himself in the arm/leg, and crawl out of the theater as if he was one of the victims.

This comment deserves at least 3 shots.

 

[MountainPharmD]

This comment deserves at least 3 shots.

Didn't Sparda get voted most likely to be sued after graduation? Maybe thats why he posted this thread?

 

[rxlea]

Didn't Sparda get voted most likely to be sued after graduation? Maybe thats why he posted this thread?

Yeah. Something like that. Now take your shots.

 

[Sparda29]

Didn't Sparda get voted most likely to be sued after graduation? Maybe thats why he posted this thread?

Nope, I was voted most likely to be late to graduation.

The shooter was not wearing body armour or a bullet proof vest.. It is illegal for civillians to buy bullet proof vests or body armour. He ordered everything other than the guns online. As reported by the media, after they erroneously stated he was wearing body armour, he was wearing a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest. This is not bullet resistant. It is a vest for holding ammunition.

If you were sitting in a movie theater and some idiot starts shooting people would you rather have a gun and a chance to defend yourself and save your life or would you rather sit there and die?

Yeah, I'd rather have a gun but in that situation I wouldn't use it unless it was point blank range.

 

[pharm B]

Yep in Texas the 30.06 sign has to be posted. I have never seen one down here.

If you were sitting in a movie theater and some idiot starts shooting people would you rather have a gun and a chance to defend yourself and save your life or would you rather sit there and die?

I'm a fan of having options, personally. Of course, guns aren't allowed in hospitals. I was just telling my wife the other day that I kinda wished they had an armory you could just check it into when walking into work, and then get it back at the end of the day.

But then you'd have an armory. In a hospital.