Gilberto Hernandez and Ruth Elizondo V Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation and Victoria Mcgill

1187 Words5 Pages
Gilberto Hernandez and Ruth Elizondo v Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation and Victoria McGill decision by Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division FACTS: Gilberto Hernandez and his wife, Ruth Elizondo, filed a complaint against Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation and Victoria McGill, R.N. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for bodily injuries because of loss of eye sight from use of a drug sold by Schering. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to six of the counts of the complaint but denied summary judgment on the remaining counts. Appeal was filed by the plaintiffs. December 2001, Mr. Hernandez, plaintiff, tested positive for Hepatitis C (HVC) AND exposure to Hepatitis A and B. He was referred to Dr. Suleima Hindi, who specializes in diseases of the liver and digestive tract. Dr. Hindi diagnoses Hernandez with HVC and prescribes a combo of PEG-intron/Rebetol manufactured by Schering, which is an oral medication with the best results in treating HVC. This medicine was prescribed because it had been on the market the longest and was prescribed more frequently. Dr. Hindi also advised his patient to attend an education class on the medication sponsored by Schering. This class was intended to aid in how to use the medication as well as explaining possible side effects. April 10, 2012, the plaintiffs attended the class with Nurse Victoria McGill as the instructor. Pamphlets entitled “Understanding the Side Effects of Interferon Therapy” were handed out and Nurse McGill stated that she would go over all the side effects of PEG-Intron. This particular pamphlet said nothing about blindness and McGill did not state anything about blindness or vision related issues either. McGill’s role was to educate the patients on basic side effects. Basic side effects included flu-like symptoms,

More about Gilberto Hernandez and Ruth Elizondo V Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation and Victoria Mcgill

Open Document