Trending...
- Governor Newsom honors fallen California Highway Patrol Officer Miguel Cano - 103
- Governor Newsom marks historic expansion of California's Film and Television Tax Credit Program, announces 16 new projects to film in the Golden State
- California: Governor Newsom announces appointments 7.2.25
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
- Heritage at South Brunswick Offers Immediate Townhome Appointments and Special Mortgage Incentive Fast-Moving Sales
- Sam Sammane wins Literary Titan Award for Republic of Mars, a haunting sci-fi debut on memory
- Fair Trade LA, The Tote Project, and Fair Trade USA™ Distribute 100 "Fair Care Packages" to Families Affected by Los Angeles Fires
- For Third Consecutive Year, ELEVATE Recognized as Star Performer & Major Contender by Everest Group
- NASA Collaborative Agreement for Supply of Thin-Film Solar Tech for Orbital Application to Advance Development of Thin-Film PV Power Beaming: $ASTI
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
- Shoot 'Em Up Classic Undeadline Coming to America & Europe for the First Time in New Collector's Set
- Exciting New Era of Sports, Entertainment & Gaming Innovation Spotlighted by Rebrand of Expanding AI Driven, Online Fan Engagement Company: SEGG Media
- FANATICS AND COMPLEX PRESENT <BLACKPINK IN YOUR AREA> LEAGUE COLLECTION TO CELEBRATE THEIR COMEBACK
- Service Ninjas Debuts First-of-Its-Kind "Membership" Platform for Home Service Pros
- Project Management Institute San Francisco and TalentCheetah Inc. Announce New Strategic Partnership
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
- Jason Koch: Pioneering the Future of Real Estate Development in New Jersey
- Amid Trump's assault on public lands, California conserves over one million acres of land and coastal waters in just one year
- California: Governor Newsom announces appointments 7.7.25
- City of Long Beach to Upgrade Its Internet Infrastructure to Enhance City Network Reliability and Performance
- Groflex Named One of the Top 100 Manufacturing Startups in San Francisco by F6S
- BofA Directs Additional $1 Million to Los Angeles Nonprofits for Evolving Fire Recovery Needs
- Introducing LK Blue: The Cool-Girl Denim Brand That's Redefining LA Style Launches E-Commerce
- THINKWARE Announces Prime Day Deals on Best-Selling Dash Cams
- Zeta Sky Strengthens Cybersecurity Support for Ontario Businesses Facing Rising Identity & Complian
- Bach and Beyond: Cellists Return to the Beach for 2nd Annual Bethany Beach Cellofest
- Boleros de Noche presents "Marisoul y Los Hermanos Carlos" & "Bolero Soul" at The Ford
- Krispy Kreme, Inc. (DNUT) Investors Who Lost Money Have Opportunity to Lead Securities Fraud Lawsuit
- The 17th Annual Hola Mexico Film Festival presented by Toyota, September 12-20, during Hispanic Heritage Month, Official Poster Reveal
- NR7 Miner launches zero-cost USDT cloud mining service: daily stable income + referral rewards for double profit
- "The Grateful Dead — 60 Years in San Francisco" - Pantheon Media Launches New Podcast Series and Interactive "Hit Replay" App
- Deaths Spur Closures, but Troubled Teen Camps Must Be Banned, CCHR Warns
- Kiavi Expands Leadership Team to Further Bolster Construction Lending Growth
- Palmer Lake Wine Festival To Build Bridges in Small Mountain Community, Highlight Local Businesses
- Swim Up Hill Appoints Ambassador Lawson, Rep. Towns, and Banker Henderson to Board of Directors
- Paralympic Medalist Jamal Hill Launches Official Road to LA28 Campaign and $3M Corporate Fundraising Initiative