The court revived a 2004 lawsuit that accused Hyland Pharmacy in Salt Lake City of negligence. Third District Judge Tyrone E. Medley had dismissed the case in 2006.

In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began receiving reports of valvular heart disease and pulmonary hypertension in people who had been using for long periods of time the appetite suppressant drug combination fen-phen - short for fenfluramine and phentermine.

By September of that year, the FDA asked the manufacturers of fenfluramine to voluntarily withdraw it from the market.

But patient Steve Downing, who began taking fen-phen in February 1996, continued to get his prescriptions for both drugs filled at Hyland through September 2000, according to the court's decision.

As a result, Downing suffered damage to his heart valves, said his Provo attorney, D. David Lambert, and he brought the negligence claims against Hyland.

"When the dangers of the drug became apparent and it was removed from the market, it was a major news event," Lambert said, yet "it was a significant period of time after the drugs were removed that the pharmacy [continued to] fill this prescription."

In 2003, the Utah Supreme Court had rejected a claim against a Utah pharmacy that did not warn consumers about the general side effects of an FDA-approved drug. Citing that decision, Medley ruled that Hyland could not be held liable for negligence for filling prescriptions issued by a physician.

The Utah Supreme Court, however, disagreed.

Chief Justice Christine Durham said recent decisions that discuss the 2003 case acknowledge that its protections only extend to warnings about the general side effects of drugs - not to specific problems known to pharmacists, such as prescriptions for dangerous amounts of drugs, or those that may pose risks to certain patients.

"Pharmacists under such circumstances owe their customers a duty of reasonable care," she said.

Returning the case to the trial court "will presumably include the development of the record on the question of withdrawal of the drug and the standard of care for a reasonable pharmacist under the circumstances."

Jesse Trentadue, an attorney for Hyland, said the court's decision could have a ripple effect, which extends far beyond Utah.

"This is a case of first impression. It's being sent back to develop what will be the standard of care," he said. "I believe it's going to have great import not only for pharmacists in Utah, but nationwide."

Pharmacists have the right to rely on a physician's experience and knowledge when dispensing a drug, Trentadue said.

Holding them liable for filling a prescription that is not otherwise seen as unsafe for a patient will make the process more cumbersome, he said. It will "take away the confidence they feel in responding to the order of a physician," Trentadue said. "They will have to take second or third looks at orders."

But Lambert said the court's decision does not change a general rule that pharmacists do not have to scrutinize physicians' decisions.

"The court is saying when the pharmacy has its own knowledge that a drug is not approved, you should not dispense it," he said. "It's a very narrow exception."

lrosetta@sltrib.com