Landmark court case: Muh Seizures

[Lnsean]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Agreed.
The insurance should be found liable.

I never understood why we are the middle men.
We submit the physician information to them with the claim.

They could start requiring a valid fax number.



Also, I also think the family and patient are at fault.
they shOuld've called around for pricing.

Unless it was brand name, I could've done it for $0.40-80 cents per pill (knowing the patient was in a pinch)

How dare you even suggest that the patient be responsible for his/her own health. My patients are appalled when they ask me for free meds to cover them until their mail order comes in and I tell them no it'll be 11.99 for 5 pills.

 

[Charcoales]

How dare you even suggest that the patient be responsible for his/her own health. My patients are appalled when they ask me for free meds to cover them until their mail order comes in and I tell them no it'll be 11.99 for 5 pills.

How DARE you not give free stuff out. Dont you know they could very well come to irreversible harm because you are being a McScrooge?

 

[PikminOC]

I still don't see how they "proved" negligence on Walgreens' part

We dont have the entire case, just the article

 

[Whereismynorco]

We dont have the entire case, just the article

 

[PikminOC]

Thanks! Looks like they proved enough to not dismiss the case against Walgreens

"Walgreens never contacted Dr. Schoeck, A.I. 54, 58-60,
189; A.II. 76-77, 172-73, even though Walgreens’s
pharmacists promised Ms. Rivera’s family at least
seven different times that they would. A.I. 68-71"

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Thanks! Looks like they proved enough to not dismiss the case against Walgreens
"Walgreens never contacted Dr. Schoeck, A.I. 54, 58-60,
189; A.II. 76-77, 172-73, even though Walgreens’s
pharmacists promised Ms. Rivera’s family at least
seven different times that they would. A.I. 68-71"

Holy cow is Walgreens counsel incompetent.

They are allowing the other side to claim that the pharmacist promised to do something without challenging it and allowing the other side to force them to prove they faxed something.


This whole case could've been solved by saying "I don't recall ever making that promise or anything similar"

 

[lord999]

Holy cow is Walgreens counsel incompetent.

They are allowing the other side to claim that the pharmacist promised to do something without challenging it and allowing the other side to force them to prove they faxed something.


This whole case could've been solved by saying "I don't recall ever making that promise or anything similar"

That's one way, but that'd probably open them up to credulity concerns (when wouldn't you say that you'd contact a physician over a problem script?). It's actually easier to go that we DID attempt to contact the physician. No, we don't have documentation. No, there is no standard documentation. And then when the theory of agency came up, we're just following the process. PA and formulary prescribing is within the prescriber's control.

It's multilevel. What you saw is a glaring idiotic issue. In addition, allowing the court to pin agency on the pharmacist is completely incompetent on their part.

 

[PikminOC]

They had a pharmacist testify as to what is customary

 

[PikminOC]

Holy cow is Walgreens counsel incompetent.

They are allowing the other side to claim that the pharmacist promised to do something without challenging it and allowing the other side to force them to prove they faxed something.


This whole case could've been solved by saying "I don't recall ever making that promise or anything similar"

So lie?

 

[zelman]

So lie?

Not necessarily. I don't remember most of the prior auths I've been involved in.

 

[CynicalIntern]

Not necessarily. I don't remember most of the prior auths I've been involved in.

I 100% don't remember any prior authorization I called the doctor on 9 years ago. I'd be stunned if any of the employees still worked for this Walgreens, or even Walgreens in general.

 

[confettiflyer]

So lie?

Saying you don’t recall something isn’t lying.

I mean, someone’s deposing you or you’re on the stand....I’m 100% not going to recall something in that moment.

Not lying. Hah.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[PikminOC]

I 100% don't remember any prior authorization I called the doctor on 9 years ago. I'd be stunned if any of the employees still worked for this Walgreens, or even Walgreens in general.

This case has been going on a while so it is not 9 years

 

[PikminOC]

Saying you don’t recall something isn’t lying.

I mean, someone’s deposing you or you’re on the stand....I’m 100% not going to recall something in that moment.

Not lying. Hah.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I dont think Walgreens counsel is stupid...nor is the other side or the judge

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I dont think Walgreens counsel is stupid...nor is the other side or the judge

They are though.

 

[PharFromNormal]

Aren’t responsibilities and regulations of a pharmacist driven at the state level? Even if this occurred in another state and they attempted to use Massachusetts SC ruling as precedent couldn’t the counter argument be that the Massachusetts SC doesn’t have jurisdiction over the responsibilities of a pharmacist licensed by a different state board and entity? IANAL but somebody help me understand this....

 

[zelman]

Aren’t responsibilities and regulations of a pharmacist driven at the state level? Even if this occurred in another state and they attempted to use Massachusetts SC ruling as precedent couldn’t the counter argument be that the Massachusetts SC doesn’t have jurisdiction over the responsibilities of a pharmacist licensed by a different state board and entity? IANAL but somebody help me understand this....

As far as I know, third party adjudication hasn't been explicitly been included or excluded from the scope of practice of a pharmacist in any state, so this is the only precedent on the books now. As such, it may be the basis for future legal claims.

 

[PikminOC]

The amicus is just what the plaintiff filed. Is there thorough information regarding the case?

 

[pencilandpen]

thats why when it comes to these seizure meds i would always give a few days worth of pills to hold them over in case something like this happens.
yes there would be shrinkage in your inventory but its better than a costly lawsuit

 

[zelman]

thats why when it comes to these seizure meds i would always give a few days worth of pills to hold them over in case something like this happens.
yes there would be shrinkage in your inventory but its better than a costly lawsuit

How many months worth would you have given in this situation?

 

[Niosh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all that the Supreme Court ruled was that the case would be heard. Not that the family won anything or that the pharmacy is in the wrong. They're just allowing the family to continue suing Walgreens, right? This shouldn't have any real impact on pharmacy law unless the family wins the case?

 

[PikminOC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all that the Supreme Court ruled was that the case would be heard. Not that the family won anything or that the pharmacy is in the wrong. They're just allowing the family to continue suing Walgreens, right? This shouldn't have any real impact on pharmacy law unless the family wins the case?

I think impact is already made now that this wasnt dismissed upon this appeal. Some pharmacy chains are already changing protocol per this thread

 

[PikminOC]

They are though.

Why do you say that?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Aren’t responsibilities and regulations of a pharmacist driven at the state level? Even if this occurred in another state and they attempted to use Massachusetts SC ruling as precedent couldn’t the counter argument be that the Massachusetts SC doesn’t have jurisdiction over the responsibilities of a pharmacist licensed by a different state board and entity? IANAL but somebody help me understand this....

What does the pharmacy act have to do with liability in a civil suit?

thats why when it comes to these seizure meds i would always give a few days worth of pills to hold them over in case something like this happens.
yes there would be shrinkage in your inventory but its better than a costly lawsuit

Why?
Is there a state that allows a pharmacist you give away pills without documenting that they left the pharmacy?

 

[PikminOC]

What does the pharmacy act have to do with liability in a civil suit?

Why?
Is there a state that allows a pharmacist you give away pills without documenting that they left the pharmacy?

I had a patient once get emergency doses of noncontrolled for a few days. They deducted it from her prescription I wrote, so she got the 28 remaining pills later. All documented

 

[PharFromNormal]

What does the pharmacy act have to do with liability in a civil suit?

Why?
Is there a state that allows a pharmacist you give away pills without documenting that they left the pharmacy?

One can interpret the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court (not the suit itself) as an establishment of legal responsibility or duty to inform. Lower courts ruled this suit should be essentially thrown out because they believed the phamarcy had no legal responsibility to do this. From where are the legal responsibilities of the pharmacist articulated and interpreted? The pharmacy act, no? Requirements, responsibilities, and duties of the pharmacist are regulated by state, making me wonder while yes another state could use this as consideration, counter argument for separate state defined responsibilities of the pharmacist may be valid.

 

[Sine Cura]

Perhaps CoverMyMeds will now be the standard for WM employees to document PA request activity, along with the other 50 things to do like give 30 expanded a week, sell Narcan, cull all Rx above 90 MME, etc. especially due to incompetent FQHCs not doing **** about anything.