Power of the Package Insert
Neil L. Chayet
Abstract
Neil L. Chayet
Abstract
THE precursor of the current storm surrounding the heretofore innocuous package insert was a malpractice case against a New York dentist in which the insert in a package of epinephrine with lidocaine (Xylocaine) became the plaintiff's chief weapon against the dentist who had administered the drug to a hypertensive woman. The patient died shortly after the drug was administered, and her estate, which brought the lawsuit, was unable to obtain expert medical testimony to prove that the dentist had been negligent in administering the drug. A jury was allowed to find against the dentist, however, on the ground that the . . .
OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
THE precursor of the current storm surrounding the heretofore innocuous package insert was a malpractice case against a New York dentist in which the insert in a package of epinephrine with lidocaine (Xylocaine) became the plaintiff's chief weapon against the dentist who had administered the drug to a hypertensive woman. The patient died shortly after the drug was administered, and her estate, which brought the lawsuit, was unable to obtain expert medical testimony to prove that the dentist had been negligent in administering the drug. A jury was allowed to find against the dentist, however, on the ground that the . . .
Key concepts: Medicine, Package insert, Jury, Lawsuit, Malpractice, Plaintiff, Lidocaine, Insert (composites)