Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

In 2023, a majority of the South Carolina Supreme Court found unconstitutional the 2021 version of the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act (the 2021 Act). In response to its decision, the South Carolina General Assembly (the legislature) revised the 2021 Act, especially in terms of its legislative findings and purposes, and passed a new version of the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act (the 2023 Act). Immediately after the Governor signed the 2023 Act into law, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and three other medical providers (collectively, Planned Parenthood) filed an action in the circuit court seeking a declaration that the new law was unconstitutional. Upon Planned Parenthood's motion, the circuit court enjoined enforcement of the 2023 Act pending resolution of the constitutional challenge. Numerous state officials (collectively, the State) promptly filed an emergency petition to the South Carolina Supreme Court for supersedeas or, alternatively, a request that it accept the matter in its original jurisdiction and expedite briefing. The Court denied the petition for supersedeas but granted the alternative request to accept the matter in its original jurisdiction and expedite resolution of the case. The Court vacated the preliminary injunction issued by the circuit court and declared the 2023 Act constitutional. View "Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. v. State of South Carolina, et al." on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio certified two questions to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding whether a state entity could continue asserting claims against opioid manufacturers and distributors after the State of Georgia entered into a settlement with the pharmaceutical companies, and as part of the settlement, the General Assembly enacted OCGA § 10-13B-1, et seq. (the “Settlement Act”) in 2022, which included a litigation preemption provision that “bar[s] any and all past, present or future claims on behalf of any governmental entity seeking to recover against any business or person that is a released entity under the terms of the relevant settlement.” OCGA § 10-13B-3 (a) (the “preemption provision”). In April 2019, before Georgia entered into the state-wide settlement with the pharmaceutical companies, the Hospital Authority of Wayne County, Georgia (“HAWC”) filed suit against a number of such entities, seeking to recover unreimbursed amounts it claims to have expended in treating opioid-dependent patients. HAWC subsequently chose not to participate in the state-wide settlement and did not individually release any of its claims. At some point, HAWC’s litigation was consolidated, along with over 3,000 other cases, into a federal multidistrict litigation in the District Court. See In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation, (MDL No. 2804). Seven defendants named in HAWC’s complaint filed a motion to dismiss HAWC’s claims against them (the “Motion”), contending that the suit was barred by the preemption provision. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the Georgia General Assembly's passage of the preemption provision took away any power HAWC otherwise might have had under OCGA § 31-7-75 to pursue claims that the preemption provision and the Settlement Act were unconstitutional, and the answer to the first question certified by the District Court was no. In light of this answer, the Supreme Court did not need to answer the second certified question. View "Hospital Authority of Wayne County v. AmeriSourceBergen Drug Corp, et al." on Justia Law

In this case determining the scope of immunity afforded by Executive Order No. 7V, as it related to acts or omissions undertaken in good faith by health care professionals and health care facilities because of an alleged lack of resources attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the trial court concluding that Defendants failed to establish that the immunity afforded by the order applied in this case.Governor Ned Lamont issued Executive Order No. 7V providing immunity from suit and liability to health care providers under certain circumstances relating to COVID-19. Plaintiff in this case filed wrongful death claims against Defendants, Regency House of Walling ford, Inc. and National Health Care Associates, Inc., alleging twelve counts of wrongful death based on medical negligence and medical recklessness. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming immunity under Executive Order No. 7V. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court too narrowly construed the language of the order but nevertheless did not err in denying Defendants' motion to dismiss. View "Manginelli v. Regency House of Wallingford, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court in his wrongful death action filed by the daughter of the decedent and the executor of her estate, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing counts five, six, and seven of the complaint.At issue was Executive Order No. 7V, which conferred immunity on health care providers in connection with the governor's March, 2020 declaration of a public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff brought this action against several physicians and a hospital, but Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they were immune under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) for allegedly grossly negligent acts and omissions undertaken before the receipt of the decedent's negative COVID-19 test result. The court granted the motions to dismiss as to certain physicians. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that Defendants were entitled to immunity under the PREP Act. View "Mills v. Hartford HealthCare Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and appellant Rhonda S. is the conservator, appointed pursuant to section 5350 of the Lanterman-Petris Short Act (LPS), of her adult son David S. Plaintiff sued Defendants and respondents Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals for a declaration of their obligations, under LPS and the terms of David’s health plan, to transport and accept for “assessment and evaluation” (each as defined in LPS) conservatees like David upon their conservators’ demand. The trial court sustained Kaiser’s demurrer.
The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that it rejects Plaintiff’s implication that an LPS conservatee is per se suffering from an “Emergency Medical Condition” at all times following the judicial determination of grave disability. The purposes of LPS conservatorship include providing treatment to the conservatee. (Section 5350.1.) To assume a conservatee’s condition remains static following the conservatorship order is to assume treatment is always ineffectual. We are offered no basis for such an assumption. For a mental health condition to be an “Emergency Medical Condition” under the plan, “acute symptoms of sufficient severity” must result in an “immediate” specified danger or mental health disorder-induced disability. Second, even if conservatees were in a state of perpetual “Emergency Medical Condition” within the meaning of the plan, Plaintiff’s requested declaration would eliminate the coverage requirement that a “reasonable person would have believed that the medical condition was an Emergency Medical Condition which required ambulance services.” View "Rhonda S. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan" on Justia Law

Defendants Gladden and Linton were convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and mail fraud, and the substantive offenses of health care fraud, mail fraud, and aggravated identity theft, for their roles in a multi-year scheme to defraud insurance companies. The government alleged Defendants received inflated reimbursement payments by billing for medically unnecessary and fraudulent prescriptions.The Eleventh Circuit found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict as to all of Linton’s convictions and as to Gladden’s convictions for conspiracy, health care fraud, and mail fraud. In addition, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court did not clearly err in calculating Gladden’s restitution and forfeiture amounts. The Court also vacated Galdden's conviction for aggravated identity theft and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "USA v. John Gladden, et al" on Justia Law

The United States Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone for use in 2000 under the brand name Mifeprex. FDA approved a generic version in 2019, and in 2021, FDA announced that it would not enforce an agency regulation requiring mifepristone to be prescribed and dispensed in person. The agency moved that requirement from mifepristone’s conditions for use. The subject of this appeal is those four actions: the 2000 Approval, the 2016 Amendments, the 2019 Generic Approval, and the 2021 Non-Enforcement Decision. Plaintiffs, Medical Organizations and Doctors contend that FDA overlooked important safety risks in approving mifepristone and amending its restrictions. The Medical Organizations and Doctors moved for preliminary injunctive relief. The district court granted the motion but stayed the effective date of each of the challenged actions under 5 U.S.C. Section 705. FDA appealed, as did Intervenor Danco Laboratories, LLC.     The Fifth Circuit vacated in part and affirmed in part. The court vacated in part and concluded that the Medical Organizations and Doctors’ claim as to the 2000 Approval is likely barred by the statute of limitations. Thus, until final judgment, Mifeprex will remain available to the public under the conditions for use that existed in 2016. The court also vacated the portion of the order relating to the 2019 Generic Approval because Plaintiffs have not shown that they are injured by that particular action. The generic version of mifepristone will also be available under the same conditions as Mifeprex. The court affirmed the components of the stay order that concern the 2016 Amendments and the 2021 Non-Enforcement Decision. View "Alliance Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that in determining whether a petition for court-ordered treatment complies with statutory requirements, courts may consider contents of an extrinsic document attached to an affidavit if the affidavit specifically incorporates the attachment by reference.The trial court found that G.B. was persistently or actually disabled and ordered treatment for one year. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's order on the grounds that involuntary treatment proceedings require strict statutory compliance and that two affidavits submitted by G.B. failed to comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. 36-533(B). The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion and affirmed the order of the trial court, holding that that there was no fundamental, prejudicial error in this case because the trial court's error did not deprive G.B. of a fair opportunity to oppose the petition for involuntary treatment or to otherwise receive a fair hearing. View "In re Pima County Mental Health No. 20200860221" on Justia Law

In this declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court overruling the motion to intervene as a matter of right filed by St. Louis and Jackson counties (the Counties), holding that the circuit court erred in overruling the Counties' motion to intervene as a matter of right.Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Department of Health and Senior Services. The circuit court ultimately declared that 19 C.S.R. 20-20.050(3) was constitutionally invalid. Several entities filed motions to intervene, including the Counties. The circuit court overruled all motions to intervene. The Supreme Court vacated the order below, holding that the circuit court erred in denying intervention where the motions were timely filed, the counties had an interest in the subject matter of the action, disposition of the action would impede their interests, and the existing parties no longer adequately represented their interest. View "Robinson v. Mo. Dep't of Health & Senior Services" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Oklahoma legislature unanimously passed the Patient’s Right to Pharmacy Choice Act. In response to the Act’s passage, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a trade association representing PBMs, sued to invalidate the Act, alleging that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and Medicare Part D, preempted the Act. The district court ruled that ERISA did not preempt the Act but that Medicare Part D preempted six of the thirteen challenged provisions. PCMA appealed the court’s ERISA ruling on four provisions of the Act and the court’s Medicare Part D ruling on one provision. After its review, the Tenth Circuit determined ERISA and Medicare Part D preempted the four challenged provisions, and therefore reversed. View "Pharmaceutical Care v. Mulready, et al." on Justia Law