This RCD analyzes the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent answer to two certified questions sent to the court from the Eleventh Circuit. The questions involved whether a pharmaceutical company’s duty to warn included a duty to provide instructions about how to properly mitigate for warned of risks, and if the pharmaceutical company had such a duty could a plaintiff recover if their physician would have prescribed the same drug but just changed their monitoring scheme. The Alabama Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative, expanding the causation standard in failure to warn claims.

中文翻译：

---

多少信息就足够了？了解阿拉巴马州最高法院扩大未警告索赔的因果关系标准

本 RCD 分析了阿拉巴马州最高法院最近对第十一巡回法院发送给法院的两个经过认证的问题的答复。问题涉及制药公司的警告义务是否包括提供有关如何适当减轻警告风险的说明的义务，以及如果制药公司有这样的义务，如果他们的医生开出相同的药物，但只是简单地开出相同的药物，原告可以得到赔偿吗？改变了他们的监控计划。阿拉巴马州最高法院对这两个问题的回答都是肯定的，扩大了未警告索赔的因果关系标准。