Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that an individual can bring a private action under the Minnesota private attorney general statute to compel a healthcare provider to disclose that individual’s medical records as required by the Minnesota Health Records Act. This decision was based on the interpretation of the private attorney general statute, which the court concluded applies to laws regarding unfair, discriminatory, and other unlawful practices in business, commerce, or trade. The court found that the Minnesota Health Records Act, which mandates the timely disclosure of health records to patients, falls within this category. However, the court also held that an individual does not have a private right of action under the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights to compel a healthcare provider to disclose an individual’s medical records. The ruling affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Findling vs. Group Health Plan, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the defendant, Bradley Ready, appealed his sentence following his guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The court affirmed the district court's decision.During a search of Ready's residence, law enforcement officers found drug paraphernalia, scales, a loaded hunting rifle, and three bags of methamphetamine. Ready was subsequently charged and pleaded guilty to both counts. At sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office recommended grouping the drug and gun counts together and applying a two-level enhancement due to the possession of a dangerous weapon. Ready objected to this enhancement, but the district court overruled this objection.On appeal, Ready argued that the district court erred in applying the enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon and applied the wrong standard in determining his eligibility for safety valve relief. The appellate court found no error in the district court's conclusions.The appellate court held that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon, as it was not "clearly improbable" that the rifle found in Ready's bedroom was connected to the distribution of methamphetamine from his home. The court also held that the district court did not err in its application of the standard for determining Ready's eligibility for safety valve relief. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Ready" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit evaluated a decision by the Western District Court of Missouri, which had denied Robin M. Sims's motion for compassionate release from prison under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In 2015, Sims was convicted of drug trafficking and firearm offenses and was sentenced to 360 months in prison. In 2022, he filed a motion for compassionate release, citing changes to the Armed Career Criminal Act since his sentencing and his medical conditions as extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction in sentence. The district court denied the motion, stating that Sims's arguments did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction.The Court of Appeals found that the district court had misunderstood Sims's arguments and the government's position. Instead of arguing for compassionate release due to an increased risk of contracting COVID-19, Sims had argued that he had contracted COVID-19 in custody, was experiencing ongoing medical complications, and was receiving inadequate medical care. The government had conceded that Sims had established "extraordinary and compelling" reasons under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but the district court mistakenly stated that the government had opposed Sims's motion on the basis that he had failed to do so.The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court, instructing it to consider the full scope of Sims's argument in support of "extraordinary and compelling" reasons, and if such reasons were found, to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in light of these reasons. The court emphasized the need for an individualized inquiry in motions for compassionate release. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the defendants' Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) infringed two patents owned by the plaintiffs. The patents pertained to the use of the drug vortioxetine in the treatment of patients who had previously taken certain other antidepressant medications and had to cease or reduce use due to sexually related adverse events, and for the treatment of cognitive impairment. The defendants were seeking approval to market vortioxetine for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in adults, a use not covered by the patents. The plaintiffs sought to block the defendants from marketing a generic version of the drug until after the expiration of the patents.The court held that the defendants' ANDA filings did not infringe the plaintiffs' patents. The court found that the defendants' intended use of the drug, for the treatment of MDD in adults, did not infringe the patents which pertained to other specific uses of the drug.Moreover, the court found no induced or contributory infringement. Regarding induced infringement, the court held that the defendants' proposed labels for the drug did not encourage, recommend, or promote an infringing use. Regarding contributory infringement, the court held that the defendants' sale of the drug would have substantial noninfringing uses, thus there would be no contributory infringement.Additionally, the court rejected Lupin's cross-appeal, which challenged the district court's determination that Lupin infringed a patent concerning a process for manufacturing vortioxetine. The court affirmed the district court's construction of the term "reacting" in the patent and its determination of infringement. View "H. LUNDBECK A/S v. LUPIN LTD. " on Justia Law

Salvatore Baglione, insured under Health Net of California Inc. through his employer, the County of Santa Clara, brought a lawsuit against Health Net alleging breach of contract and bad faith. This followed Health Net's inconsistent authorization of a medication prescribed for Baglione's chronic condition. Health Net moved to compel arbitration of Baglione's claims based on an arbitration provision in the enrollment form Baglione had signed. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Health Net's motion, finding that the agreement between Health Net and the County did not satisfy the disclosure requirements of Health and Safety Code section 1363.1, and therefore, the arbitration provision was unenforceable. Health Net appealed the decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court ruled that the enrollment form did not comply with the requirements of section 1363.1. It found that the form was not clear in its disclosure of which disputes were subject to arbitration, particularly with references to additional documents and laws that did not pertain to the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the form did not place the arbitration provision immediately before the signature line, as required by the statute. The court also agreed with the lower court that the agreement between Health Net and the County was non-compliant. It ruled that an arbitration agreement, which is part of a health plan, is not enforceable unless both the enrollment form and the County agreement are compliant. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's order denying Health Net's motion to compel arbitration. View "Baglione v. Health Net of Cal." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska ruled that the extended pre-evaluation detentions of two individuals, Abigail B. and Jethro S., violated their substantive due process rights. Both individuals were detained at local hospitals after suffering psychiatric emergencies. Court orders authorized immediate transportation of each individual to an available bed at an evaluation facility for further examination. However, due to a lack of available beds, neither individual was immediately transported, resulting in prolonged detentions. Abigail B. was detained for 13 days before transportation for evaluation, while Jethro S. was detained for 17 days. Both individuals appealed the detention orders, arguing that their prolonged detentions violated their substantive due process rights. The court agreed, citing a recent decision (In re Hospitalization of Mabel B.) that stated pre-evaluation detentions must bear a reasonable relation to the purpose of facilitating immediate transportation for evaluation. The court concluded that the nature and duration of Abigail's and Jethro's detentions were not reasonably related to their purpose, thereby violating their substantive due process rights. View "In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of: Abigail B." on Justia Law

In this case, a man identified as Sergio F. was taken into emergency custody after his religious delusions led him to walk naked along a road during the winter. Following this incident, the Superior Court of the State of Alaska ordered his evaluation at a treatment facility, and subsequently involuntarily committed him for up to 30 days of treatment. A subsequent petition led to the superior court ordering a 90-day involuntary commitment to the treatment facility, as it found that the man was gravely disabled and needed additional treatment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska vacated the superior court’s 90-day commitment order. It agreed with the man's argument that there was insufficient evidence to show he was gravely disabled and that the court failed to determine whether his commitment to the treatment facility was the least restrictive alternative for his treatment. The Supreme Court emphasized that less restrictive alternatives to hospitalization must be considered before ordering involuntary commitment and that it was the state’s burden to show that those alternatives do not exist or are not feasible. The Supreme Court found that this did not happen in this case, as neither the parties nor the court engaged in the specific inquiry required to address the petition’s allegations that less restrictive alternatives were considered and rejected by the treatment facility. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the 90-day commitment order. View "In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of: Sergio F." on Justia Law

In the State of Alaska, a man diagnosed with bipolar disorder stopped taking his medication, experienced a manic episode, and was hospitalized as a result. The hospital staff petitioned for him to be involuntarily committed for 30 days, which the superior court granted. The man appealed, arguing against the court's decision that he was likely to cause harm to others, was gravely disabled, and that there was no less restrictive alternative to involuntary commitment. The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska held that the man's rights were violated because there was a feasible, less restrictive alternative to the involuntary commitment. The court also ruled that even if the suggested outpatient treatment proposal was not feasible, the State had failed to meet its burden of proving that no less restrictive alternative existed, as it did not consider any other treatment options beyond the man's proposal. The commitment order was vacated on these grounds. View "In the Matter of the Necessity of the Hospitalization of Declan P." on Justia Law

In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District, Francisco Gutierrez appealed a judgment granting summary judgment to Uriel Tostado and ProTransport-1, LLC, in a personal injury case. Gutierrez was injured when his vehicle was hit by an ambulance driven by Tostado, an emergency medical technician employed by ProTransport-1, during a patient transport. Nearly two years after the accident, Gutierrez filed a complaint against Tostado and ProTransport-1. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Gutierrez's claims were time-barred under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act's (MICRA) one-year statute of limitations for professional negligence. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, a decision Gutierrez appealed.In considering Gutierrez's appeal, the appellate court held that because Tostado was providing professional medical services at the time of the incident, MICRA's one-year statute of limitations applied, despite Gutierrez not being the recipient of those services. The court reasoned that the act of driving the ambulance was an integral part of the provision of medical care, and it was foreseeable that third parties could be injured during the provision of such care. The court rejected Gutierrez's argument that MICRA only applied where the defendant owed a professional duty to the plaintiff, holding instead that MICRA applied as long as the plaintiff was injured due to negligence in the rendering of professional services, and their injuries were foreseeable. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Gutierrez v. Tostado" on Justia Law

In this fifth appeal before the Supreme Court regarding a class action lawsuit stemming from two circuit court orders denying Appellant's motion to enforce arbitration agreements and its motion to compel class members with arbitration agreements to submit their claims to binding arbitration, holding that remand was necessary.After the Supreme Court's ruling in Phillips II, Appellant filed a motion to enforce arbitration agreements and to compel 197 residents with arbitration agreements to submit their claims to binding arbitration. After the ruling in Phillips III, Appellant moved to enforce arbitration agreements and to compel thirty-three residents with arbitration agreements to submit their claims to binding arbitration. The court entered an order with respect to both motions, from which Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions, holding that the circuit court failed to provide the Supreme Court with specific findings with respect to each arbitration agreement and individual resident and that such findings were necessary for the Court to conduct a proper appellate review. View "Robinson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips" on Justia Law