Trending...
- California: Governor Newsom, Superintendent Thurmond announce over $618 million to support another 458 community schools
- $4.3 Million Patent Application Waiver Fee Granted by FDA on New Drug Application Fee for Treatment Addressing Suicidal Depression & PTSD: NRX Pharma
- xREnergy up as much as +3,094,634% on first day listed on the XRP Ledger. Ticker : $XRE
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 8, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Late Friday a federal court in San Francisco allowed a case against subsidiaries of CVS Health Corporation brought by HIV-positive "John Doe" plaintiffs to proceed, denying CVS's motion to dismiss the case.
This ruling comes on the heels of CVS's abrupt dismissal late last year of its appeal to the United States Supreme Court of a unanimous decision by the Ninth Circuit in favor of the plaintiffs who allege CVS's prescription drug program puts their lives at risk.
Download the Order denying CVS's Motion to Dismiss.
CVS's program limits people living with HIV to obtaining their life-saving medications only by mail-order—cutting off access to pharmacists and other critical benefits and services essential for people living with HIV—while continuing to make the same benefits and services available to other enrollees.
CVS's latest motion had sought to dismiss the case contending that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged CVS receives "federal financial assistance," a requirement to sue for disability discrimination under health programs subject to federal civil rights statutes.
More on The Californer
However, as the plaintiffs pointed out, CVS receives hundreds of millions of dollars each year from the federal government under the federal Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs.
CVS argued that its corporate subsidiaries that received the federal money were not responsible for any discriminatory conduct, and that its corporate subsidiaries that did participate in the alleged discriminatory conduct did not receive any federal money.
In effect, CVS argued that a large corporate defendant could defeat the broad goals of civil rights statutes by slicing and dicing its subsidiaries.
But as the Court noted in Friday's Order:
"To permit the CVS entities to escape responsibility as a result of the establishment of corporate structures which cabin their functions would exalt form over substance, and would be antithetical to the overarching purpose of the anti-discrimination provision of the [Affordable Care Act]."
In addition to the five CVS defendants named in the case, CVS has hundreds of other subsidiaries.
CVS, one of the largest healthcare companies in the world, owns pharmacies throughout the U.S., but also operates as a pharmacy benefit manager, which coordinates pharmacy benefits for people like the John Does who are enrolled in employer-provided health plans.
More on The Californer
The case before the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed late last year involved an appeal by CVS of a unanimous ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding the HIV-positive plaintiffs had appropriately pled a claim for disability discrimination against CVS under the Affordable Care Act.
Read more about the U.S. Supreme Court case here: https://consumerwatchdog.org/courtroom/groups-commend-cvss-withdrawal-us-supreme-court-challenge-hiv-rights
Following the dismissal of the U.S. Supreme Court appeal, the case returned to the federal district court for additional proceedings.
Most other major health insurance companies in the United States now allow members to opt out of mail-order-only delivery of HIV medications because of numerous settlements achieved by attorneys for Consumer Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLP, which represent the John Doe plaintiffs in the CVS action.
The CVS case is John Doe One, et al. v. CVS, et al., No.: 3:18-cv-01031 and is pending in federal district court in San Francisco before United States District Judge Edward M. Chen.
SOURCE Consumer Watchdog
This ruling comes on the heels of CVS's abrupt dismissal late last year of its appeal to the United States Supreme Court of a unanimous decision by the Ninth Circuit in favor of the plaintiffs who allege CVS's prescription drug program puts their lives at risk.
Download the Order denying CVS's Motion to Dismiss.
CVS's program limits people living with HIV to obtaining their life-saving medications only by mail-order—cutting off access to pharmacists and other critical benefits and services essential for people living with HIV—while continuing to make the same benefits and services available to other enrollees.
CVS's latest motion had sought to dismiss the case contending that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged CVS receives "federal financial assistance," a requirement to sue for disability discrimination under health programs subject to federal civil rights statutes.
More on The Californer
- OGN INVESTIGATION NOTICE: Investigation Launched into Organon & Co. and Attorneys Encourage Investors with Substantial Losses or Witnesses with Relevant Information to Contact Law Firm
- San Diego Author Debuts Thrilling Time-Travel Novel
- Bennett Awards Designs Two Cohesive Custom Awards for 2025 Sci-Tech Academy Awards
- Poll Finds Overwhelming Opposition to Keeping Big Cats as Pets
- SM Telecom Expands AT&T Partnership to Deliver Cutting-Edge 5G+ Wireless Solutions New Collab Brings AT&T's Advanced 5G+ Technology to Cellphone
However, as the plaintiffs pointed out, CVS receives hundreds of millions of dollars each year from the federal government under the federal Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs.
CVS argued that its corporate subsidiaries that received the federal money were not responsible for any discriminatory conduct, and that its corporate subsidiaries that did participate in the alleged discriminatory conduct did not receive any federal money.
In effect, CVS argued that a large corporate defendant could defeat the broad goals of civil rights statutes by slicing and dicing its subsidiaries.
But as the Court noted in Friday's Order:
"To permit the CVS entities to escape responsibility as a result of the establishment of corporate structures which cabin their functions would exalt form over substance, and would be antithetical to the overarching purpose of the anti-discrimination provision of the [Affordable Care Act]."
In addition to the five CVS defendants named in the case, CVS has hundreds of other subsidiaries.
CVS, one of the largest healthcare companies in the world, owns pharmacies throughout the U.S., but also operates as a pharmacy benefit manager, which coordinates pharmacy benefits for people like the John Does who are enrolled in employer-provided health plans.
More on The Californer
- Governor Newsom proclaims Older Californians Month
- Groundbreaking Launches 154-Acre Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration in Long Beach – Single Largest Increase in Open Space in Long Beach in Decades
- Don Barnhart Drops Unapologetically Hilarious Comedy Special "You Do You," On Open Bar Network
- Cygnet Theatre Announces The Cast and Creative Team of Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma!
- Shon Garage Door Repair Expands Trusted Services to San Diego, CA
The case before the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed late last year involved an appeal by CVS of a unanimous ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding the HIV-positive plaintiffs had appropriately pled a claim for disability discrimination against CVS under the Affordable Care Act.
Read more about the U.S. Supreme Court case here: https://consumerwatchdog.org/courtroom/groups-commend-cvss-withdrawal-us-supreme-court-challenge-hiv-rights
Following the dismissal of the U.S. Supreme Court appeal, the case returned to the federal district court for additional proceedings.
Most other major health insurance companies in the United States now allow members to opt out of mail-order-only delivery of HIV medications because of numerous settlements achieved by attorneys for Consumer Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLP, which represent the John Doe plaintiffs in the CVS action.
The CVS case is John Doe One, et al. v. CVS, et al., No.: 3:18-cv-01031 and is pending in federal district court in San Francisco before United States District Judge Edward M. Chen.
SOURCE Consumer Watchdog
Filed Under: Business
0 Comments
Latest on The Californer
- NBA Champion Lamar Odom Launches Anti-Addiction Meme Coin, Ushering in a Disruptive Innovation in Web3
- Emmetra Partners with Renesas to Advance Agentic AI-Powered Imaging Solutions
- Gravity to Bring 5-Minute EV Charging to 8 Sites Across Greater LA
- California: Governor Newsom issues statement on Pope Leo XIV, the first American Pope
- New poll shows high rates of employee burnout amid concerns over politics and personal finances
- Tessellations Appoints Luthern Williams as Head of School
- Aureli Construction Sets the Standard for Seamless Home Additions in Greater Boston
- Psychological Thriller "Killing Off Connor" To Open 34th IFS Film Fest After 12-years In Post
- Harvest Properties Acquires Two San Francisco Bay Area Self Storage Facilities for $44.2 Million
- California businesses in near-universal compliance with prohibition of intoxicating hemp products harmful to youth
- California: Governor Newsom announces upgrades to 21 state fish hatcheries to boost salmon populations
- Solaris Energy Infrastructure, Inc. (SEI) Investors Who Lost Money Have Opportunity to Lead Securities Fraud Lawsuit
- Risk Rater, Threat Assessment App, gives Users the Same Threat Evaluation as the Rich and Powerful
- Is it Really True That Tariffs Will Raise Car Insurance Rates?
- ScreenPoints Puts Film Investors in the Credits—and in the Money With New FinTech Platform
- Coastal Business Systems Wraps Up Successful 2025 Tech Show in Redding
- AdOcto Turns AirBnBs Into High-Impact Advertising Channels
- Zefr Announces Launch of Pre-Screen Brand Safety Solution for Google's Search Partner Network (SPN)
- Pathways to Adulthood Conference May 17 at Melville Marriott Honoring NYS Assembly Member Jodi Giglio, Suffolk County Legislator Nick Caracappa
- Adster Techologies awarded US Patent for breakthrough innovation in reducing latency in Ad Serving