Jury assigns liability to propofol makers

By: David LaHoda May 7th, 2010

The manufacturers of the anesthetic porpofol misused in the 2008 hepatitis C outbreak are liable to the tune of more than $5 million in compensatory damages, reports the Las Vegas Sun, May 5.

The jury found in favor of Henry Chanin, 62, who was infected with hepatitis C during a routine procedure at Desert Shadow Endoscopy Center and against Teva Parenteral Medicines and Baxter Healthcare Corp., which manufactured and distributed popofol to the facility, according to the Sun.

Chanin’s attorneys argued that the large-sized vials of the anesthetic and inadequate label warnings led to reuse over multiple patients which caused contamination and ultimately to their client’s hepatitis C infection.

Robert Eglet, one the attorneys called the 50-mililiter vials of propofol “weapons of mass infection” in his closing argument, the article reports.

In addition to the compensatory damages the jury also found that punitive damages were warranted, the amount yet to be determined.

HCPro’s OSHA Program Manual contains a section on unsafe injection practices including the proper procedures for multi-use vials.

Also, download “CDC FAQ on Safe Injection Practices” and “Infection Control and Safe Injection Practices ” from the Tools page.

Comments(7) Bloodborne Pathogens, Infection Control

Comments

By Dee Liverman on May 7th, 2010 at 10:31 am

I find it troubling that a medical professional would ever use the same needle to draw from a multidose unit vial (even with the same patient). The manufacturer seemed to have suffered from the end users lack of commitment to safety.

By Donna Hix on May 10th, 2010 at 9:00 am

What happened to safe injection practices, and good old common sense? Not the manufacturers wrong doing, the USERS poor technique. I learned proper technique for multi-dose vials in nursing school 30+ years ago, and have continued to employ it since.

By linda s on May 11th, 2010 at 8:10 am

why should the manufacturer be liable for poor practice. this is a skill taught in nursing 101. maybe we should really try to keep only the best and brightest in the medical professions and stop trying to “dumb down” everything.

By Bruce on May 11th, 2010 at 9:02 am

Another example of what is wrong with our society. Why did the manufacturer produce multidose vials? Well, it might be that it is less expensive for the patient.

Use of proper injection safety that is taught on day one of any injection class is all that is needed.

Would it have been safer to only use a single dose vial? Probably, but why is it the manufacturers fault?

We have to somehow stop this stupidity.

By Kathy D. on May 11th, 2010 at 10:16 am

I believe all Propofol bottles are labeled as Single-Patient Infusion Vials….regardless of size. It’s time anesthesia providers take a good look at their “standard practice” and learn to follow necessary rules/policies like the rest of us. The manufacturing companies also must have known that large 100ml bottles were likely to be used on more than 1 patient.

By Linda on May 11th, 2010 at 7:18 pm

The attorney’s want the deepest pockets so that they can stuff their own! This case domonstrates the absurdity of the legal system and why health care costs are out of control. Limit the attorney’s fees to one flat amount per award and these cases will disappear!

By kate on June 10th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

No, Kathy D., the manufacturers shouldn’t have assumed healthcare providers might use 100 mL bottles for multiple patients. They manufacture those bottles for INFUSION of propofol for ventilated patients’ sedation. Do you think Teva is obligated to screen its buyers for proper use of its product? It is the healthcare providers’ responsibility to use it as prescribed and per the manufacturer’s instructions.