In a medical malpractice action, is a jury advised that proper warnings to a physician can render a product non-defective and safe?

Defendant maintains in its appellate brief that the jury was not adequately advised that proper warnings to physician could render a product non-defective and safe. As the rejected jury instruction does not mention to whom the warning is to be given and the jury instruction given clearly advised the jury of just that, this argument is totally devoid of merit. It is hornbook law that the trial court may reject proffered jury instructions where portions thereof (e.g. warnings) correctly stating the applicable law are covered by other instructions given. (Carmichael v. Reitz (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 958, 986, 95 Cal.Rptr. 381.)