Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

Christopher Truett operated a methamphetamine distribution network while incarcerated in the Marion County Jail. He coordinated drug purchases and sales through phone calls, directing his girlfriend to handle the transactions and collect proceeds. Truett and his co-conspirators faced various drug and firearm charges, but he was specifically charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty and disclosed his mental, cognitive, and memory impairments during the change-of-plea hearing.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana did not hold a competency hearing despite Truett's impairments and behavior during the plea hearing. His counsel assured the court of his competence, and Truett actively participated in the proceedings. At sentencing, additional evidence of his impairments was presented, but the court again did not order a competency hearing. The court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report's findings, attributing the entire drug quantity to Truett and sentencing him to 240 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $250 fine. The written judgment included a condition for fine payment not orally pronounced at sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding a competency hearing, as Truett's behavior and counsel's assurances indicated his understanding of the proceedings. The court also found no error in attributing the entire drug quantity to Truett, as he was personally involved in all transactions. Finally, the appellate court affirmed the inclusion of the fine payment condition in the written judgment, deeming it a mandatory condition of supervised release. The court affirmed the district court's decisions. View "USA v. Truett" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the issuance of medical marijuana dispensary licenses in the city of Warren. In 2019, the Warren City Council adopted an ordinance to regulate these licenses, which involved a Review Committee scoring and ranking applications. The Review Committee held 16 closed meetings to review 65 applications and made recommendations to the city council, which then approved the top 15 applicants without further discussion. Plaintiffs, who were denied licenses, sued, alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) and due process.The Macomb Circuit Court found that the Review Committee violated the OMA and invalidated the licenses issued by the city council. The court held that the Review Committee was a public body subject to the OMA and that the city council's approval process was flawed. Defendants and intervening defendants appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the Review Committee was not a public body under the OMA because it only had an advisory role, and the city council retained final decision-making authority. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' due process claims.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the Review Committee was a public body subject to the OMA because it effectively decided which applicants would receive licenses by scoring and ranking them, and the city council merely adopted these recommendations without independent consideration. The court emphasized that the actual operation of the Review Committee, rather than just the language of the ordinance, determined its status as a public body. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider whether the open meetings held by the Review Committee cured the OMA violations and to address other preserved issues. View "Pinebrook Warren LLC v. City Of Warren" on Justia Law

Dr. Thomas C. Weiner, an oncologist, had his medical staff membership and clinical privileges revoked by St. Peter’s Health (SPH) in 2020. Prior to this, Weiner had initiated litigation (Weiner I) against SPH, alleging wrongful termination, civil conspiracy, and due process violations. During Weiner I, he requested an administrative hearing under SPH Bylaws, leading SPH to seek a stay, which was denied. Weiner was allowed to amend his complaint once but was denied a second amendment to include claims related to the administrative review process.The First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, denied Weiner’s motion to file a second amended complaint in Weiner I, citing untimeliness and potential prejudice to SPH. Subsequently, Weiner filed a new lawsuit (Weiner II) in June 2022, asserting claims similar to those he sought to add in Weiner I. SPH moved to dismiss Weiner II, arguing it was an impermissible collateral attack and constituted claim-splitting. The District Court dismissed Weiner II based on res judicata, reasoning that Weiner could have included his new claims in Weiner I and that the denial of his motion to amend was a final judgment on the merits.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the dismissal of Weiner II, but on different grounds. The court held that the District Court erred in applying res judicata because the denial of the motion to amend in Weiner I was not a final judgment on the merits. However, the Supreme Court concluded that Weiner II was properly dismissed under the doctrine of claim-splitting, which prevents parties from maintaining multiple lawsuits based on the same transaction or series of connected transactions. The court emphasized that claim-splitting aims to promote judicial economy and prevent duplicative litigation. View "Weiner v. St. Peter's Health" on Justia Law

The case involves BioPoint, Inc., a life sciences consulting firm, which accused Catapult Staffing, LLC, and Andrew Dickhaut of misappropriating trade secrets, confidential business information, and engaging in unfair trade practices. BioPoint alleged that Catapult, with the help of Dickhaut and Leah Attis (a former BioPoint employee and Dickhaut's fiancée), used BioPoint's proprietary information to recruit candidates and secure business from BioPoint's clients, including Vedanta and Shire/Takeda.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts handled the initial proceedings. The jury found Catapult liable for misappropriating BioPoint's trade secrets concerning three candidates and two clients, and for tortious interference with BioPoint's business relationship with one candidate. The jury awarded BioPoint $312,000 in lost profits. The judge, in a subsequent bench trial, found Catapult liable for unjust enrichment and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law (chapter 93A), awarding BioPoint $5,061,444 in damages, which included treble damages for willful and knowing conduct, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court largely affirmed the lower court's findings but reduced the judge's award by $157,068, as it found that BioPoint could not recover both lost profits and unjust enrichment for the same placement. The court also reversed the district court's imposition of joint-and-several liability on Andrew Dickhaut, ruling that he could not be held liable for profits he did not receive. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine Dickhaut's individual liability. View "BioPoint, Inc. v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

Kelsey Weyer applied for long-term disability benefits under a policy issued by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company through her employer. Weyer suffers from multiple medical conditions, including chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease, migraines, neurocognitive disorder, and others. The policy defines "Totally Disabled" differently for the first twenty-four months and thereafter. Initially, it means being unable to perform the duties of one's regular occupation, and after twenty-four months, it means being unable to perform any occupation. Reliance Standard initially approved Weyer’s claim and paid benefits for twenty-four months but later terminated them, arguing she could perform sedentary jobs and that her anxiety and depression contributed to her disability.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed the case and ruled in favor of Weyer. The court found that the evidence did not support Reliance Standard’s claim that Weyer’s mental health issues contributed to her inability to work. It also held that Weyer was totally disabled under the policy’s "Any Occupation" standard, based on evidence from Weyer’s physicians and independent reviews.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding no clear error in its determination that Weyer was totally disabled and that her physical conditions alone rendered her unable to work. The appellate court also agreed that the mental health disorders did not contribute to her total disability under the policy’s terms. The court applied a "but-for" causation standard, concluding that Weyer’s physical conditions independently caused her total disability, thus the mental health limitation clause did not apply. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Weyer. View "Weyer v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case involves a coalition of states led by Washington suing the FDA over its 2023 REMS, which eliminated in-person dispensing requirements for the abortion drug mifepristone. Washington argues that the FDA should have further reduced restrictions on the drug, claiming that the remaining requirements impose unnecessary hurdles. Idaho, leading another coalition of states, sought to intervene, arguing that the elimination of the in-person dispensing requirement would harm its interests by making the drug easier to obtain and harder to police, potentially increasing Medicaid costs and endangering maternal health and fetal life.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied Idaho's motion to intervene. The court found that Idaho did not have a significantly protectable interest that would be impaired by the litigation, as its complaint concerned different aspects of the 2023 REMS. The court also denied permissive intervention, concluding that Idaho's claims did not share common questions of law or fact with Washington's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Idaho's motion to intervene as of right. The Ninth Circuit held that Idaho must independently satisfy the requirements of Article III standing because it sought different relief from Washington. The court concluded that Idaho's complaint did not establish a cognizable injury-in-fact that was fairly traceable to the FDA's revised safe-use restrictions. Idaho's alleged economic injuries, law enforcement burdens, and quasi-sovereign interests were deemed too speculative or indirect to confer standing. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the appeal concerning the denial of permissive intervention. View "STATE OF WASHINGTON V. FDA" on Justia Law

Farzam Salami received emergency services at Los Robles Regional Medical Center on three occasions in 2020. He signed a conditions of admission contract agreeing to pay for services rendered, as listed in the hospital's chargemaster. Los Robles billed him for these services, including a significant emergency services fee (EMS fee). Salami paid part of the discounted bill but disputed the EMS fee, claiming it covered general operating costs rather than services actually rendered. He argued that had he known about the EMS fee, he would have sought treatment elsewhere.Salami sued Los Robles in December 2021 for breach of contract and declaratory relief. The trial court sustained Los Robles's demurrer to the first amended complaint (FAC), finding that Salami did not allege he performed his duties under the contract or that Los Robles failed to perform its duties. The court also found that the breach of contract claim could not be cured by amendment. Salami was granted leave to amend to assert claims under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). In his third amended complaint (TAC), Salami alleged that Los Robles failed to disclose the EMS fee adequately.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Los Robles had no duty to disclose the EMS fee beyond including it in the chargemaster. The court referenced recent cases, including Moran v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc., which held that hospitals are not required to provide additional signage or warnings about EMS fees. The court concluded that Los Robles complied with its statutory and regulatory obligations, and Salami's claims under the UCL and CLRA failed as a result. The judgment in favor of Los Robles was affirmed. View "Salami v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

A group of hospitals challenged a rule by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates. HHS had increased reimbursements for hospitals in the lowest wage quartile and decreased them for others to maintain budget neutrality. The hospitals argued that this adjustment exceeded HHS's statutory authority under the Medicare Act.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the hospitals, finding that HHS lacked the authority to make such adjustments. However, the court did not vacate the rule but remanded it to HHS with instructions to recalculate the reimbursements.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the lower court that HHS exceeded its authority. The court held that the Medicare Act's wage-index provision did not allow HHS to deviate from the congressionally prescribed formula. The adjustments provision also did not grant HHS the power to override the specific statutory formula. The court concluded that HHS's action must be vacated, not just remanded. Additionally, the court directed that the hospitals should receive an award of interest on the recalculated reimbursements as required by the Medicare statute.The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bridgeport Hospital v. Becerra" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Peters Young was convicted of conspiring to pay and receive kickbacks from federal reimbursements for medical creams and lotions dispensed by pharmacies she worked with. The district court sentenced her to 57 months in prison and ordered her to pay $1.5 million in restitution and forfeiture, representing the gross proceeds she controlled during the conspiracy.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially reviewed the case. Young challenged her conviction, restitution order, and forfeiture judgment, arguing insufficient evidence for her conspiracy conviction, improper calculation of restitution, and errors in the forfeiture amount. The district court denied her motion to set aside the verdict and sentenced her, including the contested financial penalties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Young’s conspiracy conviction, finding sufficient evidence that she conspired with others, including a pharmacy, to receive kickbacks. The court also upheld the forfeiture judgment, ruling that Young was liable for the gross proceeds she controlled, even if she distributed some to co-conspirators. However, the court vacated the restitution order, agreeing with Young that the government did not prove the amount of loss it experienced due to her conduct. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the correct restitution amount. View "USA v. Young" on Justia Law

A group of retired firefighters from the City of Columbia claimed that the City had promised them free lifetime health insurance. This promise was allegedly made through verbal statements, newsletters, and retirement letters. The dispute arose when the City Council required all active and retired employees under 65 to contribute to their health insurance premiums, and later extended this requirement to Medicare supplemental coverage for retirees over 65. The firefighters argued that the City should be held to its promise under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.Initially, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, allowing the promissory estoppel claim to proceed. After a nonjury trial, Judge Sprouse ruled in favor of the City, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, stating that the firefighters had not proven an unambiguous promise or reasonable reliance on such a promise.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision but modified the reasoning. The Supreme Court found that the firefighters did not prove the City made a clear promise of free lifetime health insurance. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the City Council, not individual employees, had the authority to make such promises. The Court also clarified that promissory estoppel claims need only be proven by the greater weight of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence, except in cases involving specific performance of land transfers. The Court concluded that the firefighters had no right to rely on statements made by City employees who lacked the authority to bind the City. View "Cruz v. City of Columbia" on Justia Law