
    Robert L. LARKIN and Barbara A. Larkin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PFIZER, INC., and G.D. Searle & Co., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-5340.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Feb. 24, 2005.
    Harry D. Rankin, Luann Devine, Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, Covington, KY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Susan S. Wettle, Frost, Brown & Todd, Louisville, KY, Irene C. Keyse-Walker, Robert C. Tucker, Tucker, Ellis & West, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before MERRITT and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and WEBER, District Judge.
    
      
      The Hon. Herman J. Weber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

In this products liability case, the district court exercised diversity jurisdiction in granting summary judgment to the defendants, based on the court’s conclusion that, although the Kentucky state courts had not spoken to the issue, the learned intermediary doctrine should be applied to insulate from liability the manufacturers of two drugs taken by plaintiff Robert Larkin. One or both of those drugs, prescribed by Larkin’s physician, Dr. Reynolds, had caused a life-threatening skin condition that Reynolds knew was a risk associated with each drug, but about which he had given Larkin no information because Reynolds did not believe the risk was significant.

On appeal, we could discern no way in which to predict with assurance what the state courts would hold, if faced with a request to adopt the learned intermediary doctrine, and we therefore certified the question to the Kentucky Supreme Court. In a recent opinion, the Court adopted the doctrine in a closely divided opinion reported at Larkin v. Pfizer, 153 S.W.3d 758 (Ky.2004). Based on that decision, we now AFFIRM the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the defendants.  