A man sued his pharmacy for failing to provide appropriate product information or warnings about adverse effects. The medication was prescribed by the plaintiff’s treating physician, and the Third District Indiana Court of Appeals followed the “majority” view that there was no duty to warn. Quoting from an earlier decision, the court reasoned that: “The duty to warn of hazards associated with prescription drugs is part and parcel of the physician-patient relationship because it is best appreciated in this context. The decision of weighing the benefits of a medication against potential dangers that are associated with it requires an individualized medical judgment. This individualized treatment is available in the context of a physician-patient relationship which has the benefits of medical history and extensive medical examinations. It is not present, however, in the context of a pharmacist filling a prescription for a retail customer. The injection of a third-party in the form of a pharmacist into the physician-patient relationship could undercut the effectiveness of the ongoing medical treatment. We perceive the better rule to be one which places the duty to warn of the hazards of the drug on the prescribing physician and requires of the pharmacist only that he include those warnings found in the prescription.” Alberry v. Parkmor Drug, 834 N.E.2d 199, 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).