Full opinion text
OPINION RE ARMOUR’S RULE 50 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Standard for Rule 50 Motions............................................1470 II. Armour's Statute-of-Limitation Defense....................................1470 A. The Applicable Statute of Limitation...................................1472 B. Application of the Products Liability Statute of Limitation...............1474 1. Relevant Case Law................................................1474 2. Discussion.........................................................1476 III. Armour’s “Learned Intermediary” Defense to Proximate Cause..............1481 A. Relevant Law........................................................1482 1. Federal Law Applicable to Blood Products...........................1482 2. Florida Case Law on the “Learned Intermediary” Doctrine...........1483 B. The Relationship of the “Learned Intermediary” Doctrine and the Nature of Plaintiffs Claim....................................................1484 C. Evidence Regarding Prescribing Physician’s Alleged Independent Knowledge of the Risk...................................................1487 D. Discussion............................................................1491 TV. Plaintiffs “But For” Evidence and “Cause-in-Fact” Evidence................1494 A. Relevant Case Law...................................................1494 B. Evidence.............................................................1496 C. Discussion............................................................1501 V. Conclusion ..............................................................1504 OPINION HILLMAN, Senior District Judge, Sitting by Designation. This is a wrongful death diversity action brought by Brenda Mills Walls as co-personal representative of the Estate of Jason Christopher, deceased. Brenda Mills Walls is the natural mother of Jason Christopher (“Jason”), who died on February 2, 1992. Defendant is Armour Pharmaceutical Company (“Armour”), a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Florida. During the years 1982-1985, among other products, Armour manufactured and sold under various brand names a plasma product generically known as Factor VIII concentrate. During his entire life, Jason suffered from classic hemophilia, Type A, a hereditary bleeding disorder. Treatment required transfusions of Factor VIII concentrate. It is claimed that between January 30, 1983, and May 24, 1985, Jason used and consumed Factor VIII concentrate manufactured by Armour. As a result, plaintiff claims that Jason was infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), which developed into the condition known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). As a result of complications caused by AIDS, Jason died on February 2, 1992, at the age of eleven. As filed on December 27, 1989, this action was originally brought by Steven R. Christopher, Jason’s father, on Jason’s behalf as a personal injury action. While this action was pending, the child died. Under Florida law, Jason’s personal injury claims were extinguished by his death. Fla.Stat. § 768.20. On April 29, 1992, Jason’s mother, Brenda Mills Walls, on behalf of the estate, filed an amended complaint for damages and demand for jury trial. The amended complaint reflected Jason’s death and asserted a wrongful death action under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, Fla.Stat. § 768.16-27. Following a six-day trial, the jury awarded total damages of $2,007,256.13. In response to special interrogatories, the jury unanimously found, from the greater weight of the evidence, the following facts: 1) that Jason Christopher was infected with the AIDS virus from Factor VIII concentrate produced and sold by Armour Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Armour”), Verdict, Question #1; 2) that Armour was negligent in failing to warn prescribing physicians in a timely or an effective manner of a potential AIDS risk associated with its Factor VIII concentrate product, Verdict, Question # 2; and 3) that Armour’s negligence was a proximate cause of Jason Christopher’s death, Verdict, Question # 3. The jury awarded damages of $1 million to Brenda Mills Walls, Jason’s mother; damages of $1 million to Steven R. Christopher, Jason’s father; and damages to Jason’s estate of $7,256.13, for funeral expenses, Verdict, Question #4). In addition, the jury found, from the greater weight of the evidence, that Jason’s parents, Steven R. Christopher and Brenda Mills Walls, did not know or should not have known before December 27, 1985, 1) that Jason was infected with the AIDS virus, Verdict, Question # 5; or 2) that there was a potential causal connection between Jason’s HIV-infection and his use of Factor VIII concentrate, Verdict, Question #6. Presently before the court is Armour’s timely renewed Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. In the alternative, Armour has also filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. At the close of plaintiffs case on January 15, 1993, Armour presented a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to R. 50(a) on the following grounds: first, that the action was time-barred, and second, that plaintiff had failed to present legally sufficient evidence as to either proximate cause or causation in fact. The court denied Armour’s motion in a bench ruling on January 19,1993. Armour renewed its motion at the close of all the evidence on January 20, 1993, pursuant to Rule 50(b). The court again denied Armour’s motion, and submitted the ease to the jury. Armour here renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law. I. Standard for Rule 50 Motions Under Rule 50, a court should grant judgment as a matter of law “if, under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The Eleventh Circuit has set forth the standard for district courts to apply in ruling upon Rule 50 motions as follows. District courts should “consider all of the evidence — not just that evidence which supports the non-mover’s case — but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion.” Verbraeken v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 881 F.2d 1041, 1045 (11th Cir.1989) (quoting Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc)), cert. dismissed, 493 U.S. 1064, 110 S.Ct. 884, 107 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1990). If the facts and inferences “point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party” that the court believes that reasonable people “could not arrive at a contrary verdict,” it is proper to grant such motions. However, if there is “substantial evidence” opposed to the motions, that is, “evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fairminded” people “in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions,” such motions should be denied. Verbraeken, 881 F.2d at 1045 (quoting Boeing, 411 F.2d at 375). On the other hand, determining credibility remains “a matter solely for the jury.” Therrell v. Georgia Marble Holdings Corp., 960 F.2d 1555, 1567 (11th Cir.1992). “ ‘[I]t is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of witnesses.’ ” Id. (quoting Boeing, 411 F.2d at 375). II. Armour’s Statute-of-Limitation Defense Florida has for many years recognized a products liability cause of action called “negligent failure to warn.” Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, 103 So.2d 603 (Fla.1958). The distinction between this cause of action and one for strict liability against products manufacturers has repeatedly been recognized by Florida’s courts. See, e.g., Stanley Industries, Inc., v. W.M. Barr & Co., 784 F.Supp. 1570 (S.D.Fla.1992); High v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 610 So.2d 1259 (Fla.1992); Advance Chemical Co. v. Harter, 478 So.2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 829 (Fla.1986); Moorman v. American Safety Equipment, 594 So.2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review denied, 606 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1992). However, Armour claims that the applicable statute of limitation in this action is not Florida’s four-year products liability statute of limitation, Fla.Stat. § 95.11(3)(e), but is instead Florida’s four-year negligence statute of limitation, Fla.Stat. § 95.11(3)(a). Armour reaches this conclusion because it claims that Florida’s “blood-shield” statute, Fla.Stat. § 672.316(5), precludes strict products liability and warranty actions relating to the processing and distribution of blood derivatives. If Florida’s negligence statute of limitation applied to this action, Armour claims that the action is time-barred. In a bench ruling on January 19, 1993, the court ruled that Florida’s four-year products liability statute of limitation applied to the failure-to-warn action concerning Armour’s Factor VIII concentrate filed on Jason’s behalf by his father. In addition, the court ruled that this cause of action was not time-barred. Armour claims that these rulings were in error. Armour further maintains that this action is time-barred even if the products liability statute of limitation applied. This action has been complicated by,Jason’s death which occurred after his personal injury suit was filed. It is undisputed that Jason’s mother, Brenda Mills Walls, amended the complaint to reflect her son’s death and converted the claim into a wrongful death action within three months of his death. Florida’s wrongful death statute of limitation allows actions to be brought within two years from the date of the decedent’s death. Fla.Stat. § 95.11(4)(d). ' Plaintiff argues that this action is not time-barred because Mrs. Walls brought the present wrongful death action on behalf of Jason’s estate well within the two-year limitation period. I conclude that Florida’s wrongful death statute of limitation applies to the wrongful death action presently before the court, and that Mrs. Walls brought this wrongful death action well within the statute of limitation for such actions. However, in order to decide whether a wrongful death cause of action survived Jason’s death, the court must determine whether the applicable statute of limitation had run with respect to the personal injury claim originally brought on behalf of Jason. For the reasons discussed below, in order to decide this question, I must decide whether the Florida negligence or products liability statute of limitation applied to the personal injury claim originally filed on Jason’s behalf. Previous rulings of the Supreme Court of Florida have made clear that, if at the moment of death the decedent had no claim, then his survivors have no claim that can be brought in a later wrongful death action. See Nissan Motor Co. v. Phlieger, 508 So.2d 713 (Fla.1987); Variety Children’s Hospital v. Perkins, 445 So.2d 1010 (Fla.1983); Hudson v. Keene Corp., 445 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), approved, 472 So.2d 1142 (Fla.1985). When the Phlieger decedent died, the applicable statute of limitation on his own claim had not yet run. Phlieger, 508 So.2d at 715. In allowing plaintiff in Phlieger to bring a wrongful death action, the Supreme Court of Florida distinguished the facts at issue in that case from the facts at issue in its earlier Perkins. Phlieger, 508 So.2d at 715. In Perkins, where the decedent had filed a personal injury action and obtained full recovery against the tortfeasor, the court held that a subsequent wrongful death action was barred. Id. (quoting Perkins, 445 So.2d at 1012). Further, in Hudson, the statute of limitation for the decedent’s prior cause of action had run during his lifetime, and the decedent himself would have been barred from recovery. In this situation, the court held that a subsequent wrongful death action based upon the same tortious conduct was barred. Hudson, 445 So.2d at 1153. I therefore conclude that plaintiffs wrongful death action would be time-barred if the applicable statute of limitation had run on Jason’s personal injury cause of action before his father filed suit on his behalf on December 27, 1989. Armour argues that the statute of limitation on Jason’s personal injury claim began to run in May 1985, when certain information appeared in his medical records. Armour claims that constructive knowledge of this information should be imputed to Jason’s parents at that time, regardless of whether the products liability or negligence statute of limitation applied to the original personal injury action filed on Jason’s behalf by his father. If the statute of limitation on Jason’s claim began to run in May 1985, this action would be time-barred. Jason’s father filed the original personal injury action on Jason’s behalf on December 27, 1989, more than four years later than May 1985. Further, in claiming that the negligence statute of limitation applied to this action, Armour relies upon Florida case law stating that a negligence cause of action accrues when a plaintiff has notice of either the negligence or the injury. Before the statute of limitation begins to run in a products liability ease, however, Florida courts have stated that a plaintiff must not only have notice of either the negligence or the injury, but must also know that the connection between the negligence and the injury is possibly causal. In order to decide whether the statute of limitation on Jason’s own cause of action had run before he died, I must therefore decide whether the products liability or negligence statute of limitation applied to Jason’s personal injury cause of action. A. The Applicable Statute of Limitation Relying primarily upon Silva v. Southwest Florida Blood Bank, Inc., 601 So.2d 1184, 1188 (Fla.1992), Armour claims that Florida’s “blood-shield” statute, Fla. Stat. § 672.316(5), precludes strict products liability and warranty actions relating to the processing and distribution of blood derivatives. This portion of the statute is given under the heading “Exclusion or modification of warranties.” It provides the following: The procurement, processing, storage, distribution, or use of whole blood, plasma, blood products and blood derivatives for the purpose of injecting or transfusing the same, or any of them, into the human body for any purpose whatsoever is declared to be the rendering of a service by any person participating therein and does not constitute a sale, whether or not any consideration is given therefor; and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are not applicable as to a defect that cannot be detected or removed by a reasonable use of scientific procedures or techniques. Fla.Stat. § 672.316(5). Armour further cites Silva for the proposition that the Florida Supreme Court has stated that the statute of limitation applicable to negligence claims regarding blood derivatives is the statute governing pure negligence actions. After a careful review of the Silva case, I conclude that the Supreme Court of Florida’s narrow holding in this case does not support the broad claims that Armour maintains in the case presently before me. The narrow issue presented to the Supreme Court of Florida in Silva was whether blood banks were subject to the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations or the four-year negligence statute of limitation. Because the court decided that blood banks were not health care providers, it concluded that blood banks were not subject to the medical malpractice statute of limitations, but were instead subject to the negligence statute of limitation. Silva, 601 So.2d at 1189. Silva cannot be read as ruling on any issues relating in any way to either pharmaceutical manufacturers or products liability actions. Certainly, Silva specifically cannot be read as barring application of the products liability statute of limitation in an action alleging failure to warn against a pharmaceutical manufacturer. The Supreme Court of Florida made no such rulings in Silva because such issues were never before the Silva court. However, the Silva court emphasized that chapter 69-157 had “nothing to do with either medical malpractice or the statute of limitations. Rather, it created a ‘blood shield’ statute within Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code for the purpose of eliminating actions for strict liability against blood banks.” Silva, 601 So.2d at 1188. The court further stated that § 672.316(5) “was enacted to limit the Uniform Commercial Code [“U.C.C.”] warranties in the context of the sale of blood by declaring such a sale to be a ‘service’.” Id. Moreover, the court emphasized that “[t]here is no. evidence that the legislature intended this legal fiction (that selling blood is a ‘service’ rather than a ‘sale’) to apply in any other context.” Id. In discussing the legislative purpose of Florida’s “blood-shield” statute, the Supreme Court of Florida in Silva thus stated unequivocally that § 672.316(5) was enacted to eliminate actions for strict liability against blood banks and to limit U.C.C. warranties in the context of the sale of blood by blood banks. The Florida legislature undoubtedly had specific public policy reasons for taking these actions to protect blood banks that were supplying blood at a time when they presumably had no way of knowing whether the blood contained a defect. The Supreme Court of Florida clearly did not state that § 672.316(5) was also enacted, as Armour maintains, to convert failure-to-warn products liability claims against pharmaceutical manufacturers into ordinary negligence claims. As I noted in my January 19, 1993, bench ruling on this issue, to uphold Armour’s claim that § 672.316(5) eliminated such products liability claims would be applying the “legal fiction” that selling blood is a “service” rather than a “sale” in a totally unrelated con-To do so would be to act contrary to the legislative purpose of § 672.316(5), as specifically stated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Silva. This I decline to do. Neither the plain meaning of the statutory language of Florida’s “blood-shield” statute, § 672.316(5), nor the Supreme Court of Florida’s discussion in Silva of this statute’s legislative purpose lends any credence to Armour’s position that § 672.316(5) limits failure-to-warn products liability claims against pharmaceutical companies. Moreover, the other cases that Armour cites do not support this position. text. The Florida appellate court’s discussion of the statutory purpose of § 672.316(5) in Sicuranza v. Northwest Florida Blood Center, Inc., 582 So.2d 54, 55-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), further undercuts Armour’s position that Florida’s “blood-shield” statute limits failure-to-warn products liability claims against pharmaceutical companies. In Sicuranza, plaintiff brought an action against a blood bank for supplying her with HIV-infected blood. The trial court granted the blood bank’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed, holding that plaintiff did not have to prove that the defect in the blood was detectable or removable by reasonable scientific procedures or techniques to recover in tort. The Sicuranza court based its holding on its statutory interpretation that § 672.316(5) “does not, on its face, apply to tort actions such as negligence” (emphasis added). Instead, by its own terms, § 672.316(5) pertains “only to allegations of breach of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability” (emphasis added). Sicuranza, 582 So.2d at 55-56. In the case presently before me, plaintiff brought a failure-to-warn products liability claim, not a claim for breach of an implied warranty of fitness or merchantability. I conclude that Fla.Stat. § 672.316(5), Florida’s “blood-shield” statute, has not in any way limited plaintiffs ability to bring such a claim nor converted such a claim into a pure negligence action. I therefore conclude that the products liability statute of limitation, not the negligence statute of limitation, applied to the personal injury action filed on Jason’s behalf on December 27, 1989, by his father. B. Application of the Products Liability Statute of Limitation 1. Relevant Case Law Having concluded above that this case is governed by the products liability statute of limitations, the court must now decide whether this action was timely filed under that statute. Florida appellate courts have recently outlined the factors that must exist before Florida’s products liability statute of limitation is triggered. Babush v. American Home Products Corp., 589 So.2d 1379, 1381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), review denied, 599 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1992) (citing University of Miami v. Bogorff, 583 So.2d 1000 (Fla.1991)). In a case involving a prescription drug, the Babush court stated that the following factors bear on the issue as to when the facts giving rise to the cause of action were or should have been discovered: “(1) awareness of the existence of a serious physical injury; (2) knowledge that the particular drug had been administered; and (3) constructive knowledge of medical opinion in the hospital records that the drug may have contributed to the injury.” Babush, 589 So.2d at 1381 (citing Bogorff, 583 So.2d 1000). In addition, the Supreme Court of Florida, in a products liability context, also stated that plaintiffs need to have notice of the “possible invasion of their legal rights.” Babush, 589 So.2d at 1381 (citing Bogorff, 583 So.2d at 1004). In Babush, the Florida appellate court interpreted the above test that the Supreme Court of Florida had fashioned in Bogorff “as having two essential ingredients: an injury distinct in some way from conditions naturally to be expected from the plaintiffs condition, and (as opposed to or in the medical malpractice context) exposure to the product in question.” Id. The court emphasized that “Use of the conjunction ‘and’ in this equation necessarily implies that the connection must be to some extent causal. There could be no ‘invasion of their legal rights’ unless this were so.” Id. (emphasis added). The facts of the Babush and Bogorff cases demonstrate what sort of knowledge Florida courts have required plaintiffs in products liability cases to have before the statute of limitation is triggered. In Babush, plaintiff was diagnosed as having fatal liver damage two months after he stopped taking the drug in question. Eleven years later, plaintiff filed suit. The circuit court held that the action was time-barred and granted summary judgment to defendant drug distributor. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that an issue of fact existed as to when plaintiff knew or should have known that using the drug might have caused liver disease. The appellate court found “nothing in the record to show that Babush knew, earlier or from any other source, or should have known (by virtue of his own medical records) that there was a causal connection between the drug and the injury.” Babush, 589 So.2d at 1381-82. In Bogorff, minor plaintiff became comatose and then completely disabled three months after he stopped taking the drug in question. Ten years later, plaintiffs parents filed suit. The circuit court held that the action was time-barred and granted summary judgment to defendant drug manufacturer. The appellate court reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court of Florida quashed the appellate court’s decision because ten years earlier (1) the parents were “clearly aware” of their child’s “paralyzed and brain-damaged” condition and (2) they also knew that the child had been treated with the drug. The court stated that such knowledge, while not rising to the level of legal certainty, was sufficient to give notice of the “possible invasion of their legal rights” had the parents exercised reasonable diligence: “This is not a case where a drug was ingested and the alleged effects did not manifest themselves until years later.” Bogorff, 583 So.2d at 1004. In addition, both the Babush and the Bogorff courts, following Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976), imputed to plaintiffs knowledge of information contained in their medical records. In Nardone, the Supreme Court of Florida answered questions certified to it by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as to when the statute of limitations began to run in a medical malpractice action. The Supreme Court of Florida held that, under the “peculiar facts” of Nardone (minor plaintiff became comatose and then totally blind and irreversibly brain-damaged after an operation), “knowledge of the medical, doctor, hospital, etc. records concerning the incompetent minor patient which are of a character as to be obtainable by, or available to, the patient but the contents of which are not known should be imputed to the parents, etc.” Nardone, 333 So.2d at 34. In Babush, the court applied the Nardone rule of imputed knowledge and found nothing in plaintiffs medical records that would cause his suit to be time-barred. Specifically, the court found nothing in these records to show that before 1986 (two years before plaintiff filed suit and nine years after he stopped taking the drug in question) plaintiff either knew or “should have known (by virtue of his own medical records) that there was a causal connection between the drug and the injury.” Babush, 589 So.2d at 1382. On the other hand, in Bogorff the Supreme Court of Florida concluded that plaintiffs parents had both actual and constructive knowledge sufficient to trigger running of the products liability statute of limitation more than four years before they filed suit. First, the court concluded that plaintiffs parents had sufficient actual knowledge of possible causation in 1972 because they knew that (1) the drug was administered and (2) their child subsequently suffered a “dramatic” deterioration in his physical condition. Second, and in the alternative, the court applied the Nardone rule of constructive knowledge and concluded that plaintiffs parents had sufficient constructive knowledge of possible causation because medical opinion that the drug may have contributed to the child’s injury was available in the child’s medical records in 1977. In either event, the court concluded that the parents had sufficient knowledge to begin running of the limitation period more than four years before they filed a products liability claim against the pharmaceutical manufacturer in 1982. The court therefore held that the action was time-barred. 2. Discussion Because of the Nardone rule that knowledge of medical records available to a minor patient should be imputed to the parents, Armour argues that the statute of limitation on Jason’s personal injury claim began to run in May 1985, when certain information appeared in his medical records. If the statute of limitation on Jason’s claim began to run in May 1985, this action would be time-barred. Jason’s father filed the original personal injury action on Jason’s behalf on December 27, 1989, more than four years later than May 1985. The information incorporated into Jason’s medical records in May 1985 includes a hospital discharge summary and two laboratory reports. Def. Ex. 52A, 52B, 52C. The hospital discharge summary is dated 5/22/85 and is signed by Jason’s treating physician, Jerry L. Barbosa, M.D. Def. Ex. 52A. In this document, Dr. Barbosa summarized Jason’s condition while Jason was being treated in the hospital for a tooth abscess. Dr. Barbosa reported the numerical results of a lymphocyte enumeration obtained on Jason at that time. Jason “was noted to be lymphpenic with a total lymphocyte count of 828/ cu mm. He had 86% T-lymphocytes and 17% B-lymphocytes. T4 17% and T8 64% with a T4 to T8 ratio of 0.3.” Def. Ex. 52A. Dr. Barbosa further stated that “Blood was also obtained for HTLV-3. The results are pending at the time of this dictation.” Def. Ex. 52A. A laboratory report then gives as follows the results of the “miscellaneous lab test” ordered: TEST INTERPRETATION HTLV-III POSITIVE. Def. Ex. 52C. Another laboratory report, a “clinical immunology lab report” dated 5/24/85, gave a more detañed breakdown of the results that Dr. Barbosa had listed in his discharge summary. Def. Ex. 52B. This document included lines reporting the results of the T4 T-Lymphocyte subset as 17%, 141/cu mm, with ref. range of 38-52% of lymphocyte; of the T-8 T-Lymphocyte subset as 64%, 530/cu mm, with ref. range of 22-76% of lymphocyte; and of the T4/T8 ratio as 0.3, with ref. range of 1.0-2.2. Def. Ex. 52B. The back of this document gave the following information: T4 (helper/inducer subset): Lymphocytes with this phenotype are usually a subset of helper cells shown in vitro to cooperate with B-cells for antibody synthesis. They can also induce the generation of suppressor cells. Depletion of this subset is seen in numerous infections and immunodeficiencies. In Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), a profound decrease in absolute number of T4 phenotype-positive cells is common. T8 (suppressor/cytotoxic subset): Lymphocytes of this phenotype usually have a suppressor/cytotoxic function. They are thought to be involved in the inhibition of antibody production either by directly suppressing helper cells or directly turning off B-cell differentiation. An absolute or a relative increase of T8 positive cells is seen in acute mononucleosis, eytomegalo-virus infection, and acute and chrome hepatitis type B. Several reports have shown decreased numbers of T8 positive cells in rheumatoid arthritis and BLE. T4/T8 (helper/suppressor ratio): The reversal of this ratio is an indicator of altered immunoregulatory function. Changes in this ratio are seen in numerous conditions and are not diagnostic of any particular problem. Caution is necessary in interpreting this phenomenon, and special attention must be given to the absolute number of T4 + and T8 + cells. Very low absolute numbers of T4 + cells result in an inverted T4/T8 ratio and are seen in over 95% of AIDS patients with opportunistic infections and/or Kaposi sarcoma. On the other hand, increased number of T8 + cells resulting in a reversed T4/T8 ratio is often seen in apparently healthy homosexuals. Def. Ex. 52B. It was undisputed at trial that Dr. Barbosa, Jason’s treating physician, did not share any of the above information with Jason’s parents in May 1985. Both of Jason’s parents testified at trial that neither of them learned or had any suspicion that Jason was infected with HIV until 1988. Based upon my observing them as witnesses, I conclude, as the jury did, that both parents’ testimony in this regard was credible. Considering all the testimony at trial, and specifically the jury’s response to special interrogatories # 5 and # 6, in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to plaintiff, as I must, I conclude that Steven R. Christopher and Brenda Mills Walls did not know before December 27, 1985, 1) that Jason was infected with the AIDS virus; or 2) that there was a potential connection between Jason’s HIV-infection and his use of Factor VIII concentrate. I therefore conclude that Jason’s parents had no actual knowledge before December 27, 1985, that would cause this action to be time-barred. Armour nevertheless argues that the existence of the above information in Jason’s medical records was sufficient to give his parents constructive notice in May 1985 that Jason was infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Armour further argues that this constructive notice was sufficient to begin running of the statute of limitation in May 1985. I have carefully reviewed the Florida case law cited above and that cited by the parties, particularly Armour, in their briefs on this issue. As discussed above, before the Supreme Court of Florida’s recent decision in Tanner, knowledge of an injury alone — without the additional knowledge that the injury had possibly been caused by negligence— could have been enough to trigger running of Florida’s medical malpractice statute of limitations. See Bogorff, 583 So.2d at 1002. However, to trigger running of Florida’s products liability statute of limitation, Florida courts had required that plaintiffs have knowledge beyond that of the injury alone. Specifically, Florida courts had required that products liability plaintiffs have knowledge that the connection between the injury and use of the product in question was “to some extent causal.” Babush, 589 So.2d at 1381 (citing Bogorff, 583 So.2d 1000). Thus, before Tanner, Florida courts considered that products liability plaintiffs, but not medical malpractice plaintiffs, needed knowledge of possible causation in order to trigger running of the limitation period. I reiterate this distinction because Armour relies upon several medical malpractice cases decided before Tanner in support of its position that this action is time-barred under either the products liability or the negligence statute of limitation. For the record, I note that it is the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations (given in Fla.Stat. § 95.11(4)(b)) that applies to medical malpractice actions. It is neither the products liability nor the negligence statute of limitation at issue above (given in Fla.Stat. § 95.-ll(3)(e) and 95.11(3)(a), respectively). Moreover, as discussed above, the Supreme Court of Florida held in Silva that blood banks were subject to the negligence statute of limitation, not the medical malpractice statute of limitations, because blood banks were not health-care providers. Silva, 601 So.2d at 1189. Since pharmaceutical companies are also not health-care providers, I note that an analysis analogous to the one used by the Supreme Court of Florida to decide Silva would not necessarily consider medical malpractice cases as the most appropriate authority upon which to rely in deciding either a products liability or a negligence case. Nevertheless, to the extent that Armour unrelentingly relies upon such authority, its position has been severely undercut by the Supreme Court of Florida’s recent decision in Tanner. As discussed above, in Tanner the Supreme Court of Florida clearly disapproved the rule it formerly applied in medical malpractice actions; that is, that awareness of a causal connection between the injury and the negligence was not needed to begin running of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court of Florida has now changed its former rule to require that knowledge of the injury sufficient to begin running of the medical malpractice statute of limitations include knowledge of “a reasonable possibility that the injury was caused, by medical malpractice.” Id. 618 So.2d at 181 (emphasis added). However, even before Tanner, the knowledge of the injuries that courts in both medical malpractice and products liability cases considered sufficient to trigger running of the statutes of limitations was clearly more obvious and definitive than the constructive knowledge of Jason’s HIV-infection that Armour argues is sufficient here. For example, the Babush plaintiff was diagnosed as having fatal liver damage two months after he stopped taking the drug in question. The Bogorff plaintiff became comatose and then completely disabled three months after he stopped taking the drug in question. Moreover, medical opinion that the drug may have contributed to the child’s injury was available in the child’s medical records more than four years before the parents filed suit. The Steiner plaintiff lost eyesight after taking a particular drug. The Nardone plaintiff became comatose and then totally blind and irreversibly brain-damaged after an operation. The Norsworthy plaintiff, hospitalized for difficulty breathing, was left with subglottic stenosis (the narrowing of the airway below the vocal cords) after treatment that included intubations and a tracheotomy. The MacMurray plaintiff knew that she had Hodgkin’s disease and, through her husband, a physician, had control of her medical records more than two years before she filed suit. These records contained evidence of an error in interpreting plaintiffs X-rays that defendant admitted constituted actionable negligence. Even in a medical malpractice context, where less “knowledge” was formerly required by Florida courts than in a products liability context, the “injuries” in all of these other cases were obvious and definitive enough in and of themselves to provide plaintiffs knowledge of a “possible invasion of their legal rights” sufficient to begin running of the statute of limitations. Such is not the case in the action presently before me. In my bench ruling of January 19, 1993, I referred to the condition which the Nardone court believed should be satisfied before a court should impute constructive knowledge to the parents of the contents of a child’s medical records. The court stated that these records should be “of a character as to be obtainable by, or available to, the patient.” Nardone, 333 So.2d at 34. In Nardone, before deciding that constructive knowledge of the child’s medical records should be imputed to his parents, the court emphasized that the “nature of the child’s condition [becoming totally blind and irreversibly brain-damaged after an operation] was obvious and known to the plaintiffs.” Nardone, 333 So.2d at 34. Clearly, this is a very different type of injury than the one suffered by the child here. By May 1985 Jason had presented no clinical symptoms that his parents could recognize as, or that they had been told were, symptoms of HIV-infection. It is undisputed that by May 1985 Jason had already been injured in that he was already infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. From a medical perspective, the fact of Jason’s HIV-infection may be said by that time to be “an injury distinct in some way from conditions naturally to be expected from the plaintiffs condition.” Babush, 589 So.2d at 1381. The Babush court considered such an injury to be one of the two “essential ingredients” which, when joined with the knowledge that the link between these ingredients was “to some extent causal,” was sufficient to begin running of the products liability statute of limitation. Id,. However, it is also undisputed that in May 1985 the fact of Jason’s HIV-infection was discerned only by medical laboratory testing of the cellular components of his blood. Thus, Jason’s condition in May 1985 with regard to his HIV-status cannot be said to have been “obvious or known to the plaintiffs” in the same way that the Nardone court considered minor plaintiffs blindness and brain-damage that ensued after an operation to have been “obvious or known” to his parents. I have already concluded that Jason’s parents had no actual knowledge of the test results in question. Therefore, Jason’s condition in May 1985 with regard to his HIV-status could not be said to have been known by his parents in any way except by imputing to them constructive knowledge of the significance of laboratory test results reported in medical terminology. I am not convinced that the Nardone court would have intended its 1976 holding under the “peculiar facts” of that case to be applied to impute constructive knowledge to Jason’s parents of such medical records as are at issue here in an HIV-infection case. It was apparently only because the Nardone child’s condition “was obvious and known” to his parents that the Nardone court believed it appropriate to impute knowledge of the child’s medical records to them. For the purposes of a medical malpractice action, the Nardone court clearly considered that a dramatic deterioration in a child’s condition, occurring after an operation, was sufficient to put his parents on notice of the “possible invasion of their legal rights.” Nardone, 333 So.2d at 34. The Nardone court did not rule that knowledge of a child’s condition discernible only by medical laboratory testing of the cellular components of blood and reported in the medical records only in technical terminology was sufficient to put a child’s parents on notice of the “possible invasion of their legal rights” in a products liability action. However, even imputing full knowledge of all of the information contained in Def. Ex. 52A, 52B, and 52C to Jason’s parents, I conclude that this constructive knowledge was not sufficient as a matter of law to make them aware “of the existence of a serious physical injury.” As discussed above, such awareness is the first of three factors listed by the Babush court as bearing on the issue as to when the facts giving rise to a products liability cause of action were or should have been discovered. Babush, 589 So.2d at 1381 (citing Bogorff, 583 So.2d 1000). In Def. Ex. 52A, Dr. Barbosa reported, without explanation, the numerical results and percentages obtained from a lymphocyte enumeration. In addition, without explaining the significance of this action, Dr. Barbosa noted that blood was “obtained for HTLV-3.” Def. Ex. 52A. One lab report merely stated that the result of the miscellaneous lab test ordered, HTLV-III, was positive. Def. Ex. 52C. The front of the other lab report gave further numerical breakdowns on the values obtained in the lymphocyte enumeration. The highly technical “INTERPRETATION/LYMPHOCYTE ENUM.” given on the back of this report contained only two references to AIDS. Both of these references are ambiguous at best, especially when considered in the overall context of the cautionary language used immediately before and after these references. While under the heading “T4” the report explained that in AIDS “a profound decrease in absolute number of T4 phenotype-positive cells is common,” it also states that “[depletion of this subset is seen in numerous infections and immunodeficiencies.” Def. Ex. 52B. Similarly, under the heading “T4/F8” the report explained that “Changes in this ratio are seen in numerous conditions and are not diagnostic of any particular problem. Caution is necessary in interpreting this phenomenon, and special attention must be given to the absolute numbers of T4 + and T8 + cells.” While “very low absolute numbers of T4 + cells result in an inverted T4/T8 ratio and are seen in over 95% of AIDS patients with opportunistic infections and/or Kaposi sarcoma, [o]n the other hand, increased number of T8 + cells resulting in a reversed T4/T8 ratio is often seen in apparently healthy homosexuals.” Def. Ex. 52B. As I stated in my January 19, 1993, bench ruling, I am satisfied that the information given in the documents described above was not specific enough to impute to Jason’s parents the knowledge that, as of May 1985, their child had been infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. No Florida case has ruled that information beyond that contained in the medical records should be imputed to the parents of a minor plaintiff. The information given in the documents described above did not, for instance, explain the meaning of the term “HTLV-III.” It did not explain the implications of testing positive for HTLV-III. It did not make any link whatsoever between HTLV-III and HIV or AIDS. The only two references to AIDS in these entire documents were couched in medical terminology and were so hedged about with cautionary language as to be ambiguous at best, especially to lay people. As noted later, Armour repeatedly (and properly) emphasizes that considerably less medical knowledge about AIDS existed in 1983-1984 than exists now. Likewise, and perhaps even more so, knowledge about the symptoms of AIDS among the general population at that time was practically non-existent. In short, there is nothing about the information in question that would have communicated to reasonable parents in May 1985 that their child was now infected with HIV or that their child would ultimately develop AIDS. I therefore conclude that constructive knowledge of Jason’s HIV-infection should not be imputed to his parents as of May 1985. Furthermore, even imputing full knowledge of all of the information contained in Def. Ex. 52A, 52B, and 52C to Jason’s parents, I conclude that this constructive knowledge did not provide “constructive knowledge of medical opinion in the hospital records that the drug may have contributed to the injury.” As discussed above, such constructive knowledge of possible causation is the third of three factors listed by the Babush court as bearing on the issue as to when the facts giving rise to a products liability cause of action were or should have been discovered. Babush, 589 So.2d at 1381 (citing Bogorff, 583 So.2d at 1000). The information contained in the medical records was certainly not specific enough to impute to Jason’s parents the knowledge that their child’s HIV-infection had possibly resulted from receiving either Factor VIII concentrate in general or Armour’s Factor VIII product in particular. There is nothing in these records that raised the questions “May HIV-infection be related to use of concentrate?” or “May HIV-infection be related to use of Armour’s product?” The medical records at issue before me are devoid of even a suggestion of possible causation. For all the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the constructive knowledge imputed under Florida law to Jason’s parents from his May 1985 medical records did not provide notice of a “possible invasion of their legal rights” sufficient to begin running of the products liability statute of limitation in May 1985. I therefore conclude that the personal injury action brought on Jason’s behalf on December 27, 1989, by his father was not time-barred. I further conclude that Brenda Mills Walls’s present wrongful death action is not time-barred. III. Armour’s “Learned Intermediary” Defense to Proximate Cause First, the jury found and the court agrees that in 1982-1983 Armour was or should have been aware from reasonable and available evidence of a potential risk of acquiring AIDS from contaminated blood or blood products. Plaintiff presented considerable expert testimony in support of her claim that Armour’s duty to warn of the AIDS risk associated with Factor VIII concentrate arose at an earlier time than Armour acted. This evidence took the form of oral testimony and of exhibits including both Armour's own internal documents and technical articles published in medical journals. The matter was contested and went to the jury. By its interrogatory verdict, the jury specifically found, from the greater weight of the evidence, that Armour was negligent in failing to warn prescribing physicians in a timely or an effective manner of a potential AIDS risk associated with its Factor VIII concentrate product. Verdict, Question #2. The jury further found, from the greater weight of the evidence, that Armour’s negligence was a proximate cause of Jason’s death. Verdict, Question # 3. Second, as an affirmative defense, Armour renews its claim that Dr. Barbosa, Jason’s treating physician, had independent knowledge of the risk of AIDS associated with Factor VIII products. At trial, Armour offered both testimony and exhibits consisting of documents from Jason’s medical records in support of this claim. According to Armour, even if Armour failed to warn of the risk of AIDS associated with Factor VIII products, its failure cannot have been a proximate cause of Jason’s HIV-infection. According to the well-recognized principle of the “learned intermediary” doctrine, if Jason’s prescribing physician had as much knowledge as Armour did about the risk of AIDS associated with the Factor VIII concentrate and prescribed the product anyway, then Armour’s failure to warn cannot have been a proximate cause of Jason’s injury because the physician already knew of the risk. Because Armour raises the “learned intermediary” doctrine as an affirmative defense, Armour bears the burden of proof on this issue. A. Relevant Law 1. Federal Law Applicable to Blood Derivatives Blood derivatives such as Factor VIII are prescription biologicals subject to federal regulation as both “biological products” and “drugs.” See Public Health Service Act, “Regulation of Biological Products,” 42 U.S.C. § 262; see also Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. During the relevant time period, the following regulation specified the format and content of prescription drug labeling: § 201.57 Specific requirements on content and format of labeling for human prescription drugs. (e) “Warnings”: Under this section heading, the labeling shall describe serious adverse reactions and potential safety hazards, limitations in use imposed by them, and steps that should be taken if they occur. The labeling shall be revised to include a warning as soon as there is reasonable evidence of an association with a drug; a causal relationship need not have been proved. 21 C.F.R. § 201.57(e) (1982). Moreover, the regulations governing Factor VIII as a prescription biologic licensed under the Public Health Services Act prohibited Armour from changing its labeling without prior FDA approval: § 601.12 Changes to be reported. (a) General. Important proposed changes in location, equipment, management and responsible personnel, or in manufacturing methods and labeling, of any product for which a license is in effect or for which an application for license is pending, shall be reported to the Director, Bureau of Biologies, by the manufacturer, and unless in case of an emergency, not less than 30 days in advance of the time such changes are intended to be made. (b) Manufacturing methods and labeling. Proposed changes in manufacturing methods and labeling may not become effective until notification of acceptance is received from the Director, Bureau of Biologies. 21 C.F.R. § 601.12 (1982). Under federal law, “labeling” is broadly defined and includes not only package inserts, but also separate communications concerning the drug, such as “Dear Doctor” letters sent by drug manufacturers to physicians to provide information about a drug. See 42 U.S.C. § 262(g), which states that nothing contained in chapter 6A of the Public Health Service Act “shall be construed as in any way affecting, modifying, repealing, or superseding” the provisions of the FDCA; see also 21 U.S.C. § 321(m), which gives the FDCA definition of “labeling”: “all labels and other written, printed or graphic matter (1) upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or 2) accompanying such article”; see also Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 349-50, 69 S.Ct. 106, 109, 93 L.Ed. 52 (1948), in which the court clarified that separate literature sent by the manufacturer constituted “labeling” under the FDCA when it supplemented or explained materials sent with the drug. An additional regulation provided the following information regarding mailing important information about drugs: Manufacturers and distributors of drugs and the Food and Drug Administration occasionally are required to mail important information about drugs to physicians and others responsible for patient care. In the public interest, such mail should be distinctive in appearance so that it will be promptly recognized and read. 21 C.F.R. § 200.5 (1982). This regulation further specified the type of envelope and print size for the FDA to use in such mailings. It provided that, when information in the letter “concerns a significant hazard to health,” the statement IMPORTANT DRUG WARNING must be printed on the face of the envelope in 36-point Gothic Type. Id. It “asked” manufacturers and distributors to “make such mailings as prescribed by this section.” Id. 2. Florida Case Law on the “Learned Intermediary’’ Doctrine The Supreme Court of Florida applied the “learned intermediary” doctrine in Felix v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So.2d 102 (Fla.1989), to approve the lower court’s opinion that any inadequacy in the drug manufacturer’s warnings concerning its product Accutane could not have been the proximate cause of the birth defects and subsequent death of a child. At the outset, the court explained that it is the manufacturer’s duty to warn the physician, not the patient, of the dangerous side effects of a drug. Id. at 104 (citing Buckner v. Allergan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 400 So.2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 407 So.2d 1102 (Fla.1981)). “This is so because the prescribing physician, acting as a ‘learned intermediary’ between the manufacturer and the consumer, weighs the potential benefits against the dangers in deciding whether to recommend the drug to meet the patient’s needs.” Felix, 540 So.2d at 104 (citing Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, 498 F.2d 1264, 1276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1096, 95 S.Ct. 687, 42 L.Ed.2d 688 (1974)). In Felix, the lower court held that the drug manufacturer “could not be penalized for the failure of the doctor to impart knowledge concerning the dangers of the drug of which the doctor had been warned and was aware.” Felix, 540 So.2d at 104. The Supreme Court of Florida approved this result because the prescribing physician testified that he “fully understood” the warnings provided by the drug manufacturer and also had prior knowledge of the teratogenic propensity of the drug. The Supreme Court of Florida therefore agreed that any inadequacy in the warnings provided by the drug manufacturer could not have been the proximate cause of the child’s birth defects. Felix, 540 So.2d at 104. Cf. Zanzuri v. G.D. Searle & Co., 748 F.Supp. 1511 (S.D.Fla.1990), a ease in which the court denied defendant drug manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff had alleged that the manufacturer negligently failed to disclose unfavorable information and provided inaccurately favorable information to the general public and physicians about its birth control product. In Zanzuri, the prescribing physician, who was generally informed about the risks of the product, testified that he relied heavily on the manufacturer’s literature in forming his opinion as to these risks. The court stated that the presence of misstatements in the manufacturer’s literature heightened the evidentiary threshold which the manufacturer must cross in order to show that the physician was “an intermediary sufficiently informed to interrupt the causal link of liability between the manufacturer and the plaintiff.” Zanzuri, 748 F.Supp. at 1518. B. The ■ Relationship Between the “Learned, Intermediary” Doctrine and the Nature of Plaintiff s Claim The following facts about the AIDS warning that Armour eventually provided with its Factor VIII concentrate product are not disputed. Armour submitted a request to the FDA to change its Factor VIII labeling to include an AIDS warning in late September 1983. The FDA approved this labeling change on January 25, 1984. Armour first published an AIDS warning in its Factor VIII labeling in February 1984. This warning read as follows: The possibility exists that Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, AIDS, an immunological disorder with extremely serious consequences, may be transmitted by blood, blood products and blood derivatives, including clotting factors. However, the causative agent has neither been isolated nor identified. This information should be considered in determining patient care and treatment. Pl.Ex. 57, 58. Armour argues that, because plaintiff never challenged the specific language quoted above, the “learned intermediary” doctrine focuses plaintiffs claim on the question of whether Dr. Barbosa had independent knowledge of the AIDS risk conveyed in its eventual warning. That is, according to Armour, at the time Dr. Barbosa prescribed Factor VIII concentrate for Jason in the latter half of 1983, did Dr. Barbosa believe, in the absence of reading Armour’s as-yet-unpublished warning, that the “possibility existed” that AIDS could be transmitted by blood products? I am satisfied that an affirmative answer to this question is insufficient, as a matter of law, to invoke the “learned intermediary” doctrine as a defense to Armour’s liability in this matter. Armour’s argument misconceives the nature of the duty placed upon it in this respect by the comprehensive framework of federal law outlined above. This body of law, applicable to Armour’s product Factor VIII concentrate, clearly mandates that warning labeling shall describe serious adverse reactions and potential safety hazards, limitations in use imposed by them, and steps that should be taken if they occur. The labeling shall be revised to include a warning as soon as there is reasonable evidence of an association with a drug; a causal relationship need not have been proved. 21 C.F.R. § 201.57(e) (1982) (emphasis added). This language is not discretionary. While it is explicit that “a causal relationship need not have been proved,” it requires that pharmaceutical companies “shall” revise labeling “as soon as” there is “reasonable evidence” of an “association” of “serious adverse reactions and potential safety hazards” with a drug. Since pharmaceutical companies are bound by federal law to fulfill this duty, physicians are justified in relying on the literature from pharmaceutical companies to inform them “as soon as” there is such “reasonable evidence.” Moreover, physicians are also justified in assuming that, in the absence of a warning from a pharmaceutical company about a particular drug, “reasonable evidence” of an “association” of “serious adverse reactions and potential safety hazards” with that particular drug does not yet exist. Within the comprehensive framework of binding federal law applicable to such cases, the crux of the issue in a failure-to-warn case in which plaintiff claims that a warning was not given as soon as it should have been thus becomes very different than the crux of the issue in a failure-to-warn case in which an allegedly inadequate warning was given. Even apart from such a comprehensive framework of binding federal law, the mere fact of receiving a warning about a particular drug, as opposed to not receiving such a warning, is clearly significant in and of itself. This is especially so in the context of a pharmaceutical company’s attempt to use the “learned intermediary” doctrine to relieve itself of liability for an injury by showing that a physician was “an intermediary sufficiently informed to interrupt the causal link of liability between the manufacturer and the plaintiff.” Zanzuri, 748 F.Supp. at 1518. If physicians received an initial warning about a particular drug, albeit an allegedly inadequate one, it is reasonable to assume that, at a minimum, they were put on notice that they should undertake independent inquiry into the hazards of that particular drug. If physicians received no warning, they cannot be said to have been put on such notice. However, in the comprehensive scheme of federal regulation outlined above, the very fact of a physician’s receiving no warning from a pharmaceutical company about a particular drug communicates an additional and extremely significant message. This is so because the pharmaceutical company is bound to apply to the FDA for permission to warn of adverse reactions and potential hazards “as soon as” the pharmaceutical company knows of “reasonable evidence of an association with a drug” of “serious adverse reactions and potential safety hazards,” even in the absence of proof of a causal relationship. If the FDA is convinced by the pharmaceutical company’s “reasonable evidence,” it grants the company permission to issue a warning or to revise its labeling to include a warning. Therefore, when a physician receives a warning from a pharmaceutical company about the hazards of a particular product, the physician may reasonably conclude that — quite apart from any particular language which may or may not be used in the warning — the very fact of the pharmaceutical company’s now issuing the warning effectively means that “reasonable evidence” of an “association” of “serious adverse reactions and potential safety hazards” with that product now exists. Before receiving t