In Strumph v. Schering Corp., 256 N.J. Super. 309, 323-28, 606 A.2d 1140 (App. Div. 1992), rev'd on dissent, 133 N.J. 33, 626 A.2d 1090 (1993), the plaintiff alleged that she had been injured following her ingestion of the defendant's drug and that her injuries were the result of an inadequate warning concerning that drug. 256 N.J. Super. at 310, 606 A.2d 1140. Significantly, the plaintiff's physicians did not rely upon the disputed warning. Id. at 323-24, 606 A.2d 1140. The trial judge granted summary judgment for the defendant, reasoning that the physicians' express non-reliance on the disputed warning meant "that plaintiff would be unable to establish that defendant's warning, if found to be inadequate, was a proximate cause of her condition." Id. at 315, 606 A.2d 1140. A majority of the panel reversed, reasoning that other evidence in the case created a triable issue of fact. Id. at 319-23, 606 A.2d 1140. In his dissenting opinion that was later adopted by our Supreme Court, Judge Skillman reasoned that: Plaintiff has the burden of proving that defendant's alleged warnings were a proximate cause of her injuries. To satisfy this burden, plaintiff must show that adequate warnings would have altered her doctors' decision to prescribe the drug Trilafon. Absent any evidence from which a jury could reasonably make this finding, defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Id. at 323, 606 A.2d 1140.