installed only by a physician are involved and (2) a physician prescribes the drug or installs the medical device after having evaluated the patient, the manufacturer of the drug or device owes the patient only the duty to warn the physician and to provide the physician with adequate product instructions. ' Talley argues in this case that the learned intermediary doctrine should not apply because Dr. Mathews was not independent of Danek in view of his financial connection with Danek as a consultant. She argues, therefore, that he cannot be considered an intermediary, learned or otherwise. It is true that in order for the doctrine to apply, the physician “must be an intervening and independent party between patient and manufacturer.” Hill, 884 F.2d at 1070; cf. Reyes, 498 F.2d at 1276 (<HOLDING>). Thus, if Dr. Mathews were an employee of
holding rule does not apply to satisfied conciliationcourt judgments holding that the learned intermediary doctrine did not apply where dispensing agencies of a polio vaccine were not necessarily doctors making individualized judgments holding that the feres doctrine does not apply to swine flu act claims alleging injury from negligently or defectively manufactured vaccine holding that suspicion must be individualized holding that where state rules of civil procedure apply to courts of the state they do not apply to adjudicatory proceedings before state agencies