Albert v. Sheeley's Drug Store, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 December 2021
• Docket Number: No. 5 MAP 2021,5 MAP 2021
• Citation: 265 A.3d 442
• Parties: Dale E. ALBERT Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Cody M. Albert, Deceased, Appellant v. SHEELEY'S DRUG STORE, INC. and Zachary Ross, Appellees
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

265 A.3d 442

Dale E. ALBERT Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Cody M. Albert, Deceased, Appellant

v.SHEELEY'S DRUG STORE, INC. and Zachary Ross, Appellees

No. 5 MAP 2021

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: May 19, 2021

Decided: December 22, 2021

James Michael Beck, Esq., Reed Smith LLP / Conflicts - Business Intake Department, for Pennsylvania Defense Institute, et al., Amicus Curiae.

Michael Howard Gaier, Esq., Michael D. Shaffer, Esq., Shaffer & Gaier, LLC, for Appellant.

Gregory Clifford Kunkle, Esq., Thomas Thomas & Hafer LLP, for Appellee Sheeley's Drug Store, Inc.

Zachary L. Ross, for Appellee Zachary L. Ross.

BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE WECHT

The question in this appeal is whether claims brought against a pharmacy on behalf of a decedent who overdosed on illegally obtained prescription drugs are barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto . Because we conclude that the trial court correctly applied the in pari delicto doctrine, we affirm.

In late 2015, decedent Cody Albert ("Cody") reconnected with his old childhood friend, Zachary Ross ("Zachary"). Both Cody and Zachary were struggling with substance abuse issues, and the two often used OxyContin together. At the same time, Zachary's mother, April Kravchenko ("Kravchenko"), was suffering from multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer. Kravchenko's doctors had prescribed her several opiate pain medications, which she filled at a small, independent pharmacy in Scranton called Sheeley's Drug Store ("Sheeley's"). Sheeley's is owned by pharmacist Lori Hart, but Donato Iannielli—Hart's father and the prior owner of Sheeley's—also works at the store part-time.

In early 2016, Kravchenko's health deteriorated and she was hospitalized. Kravchenko and her sister Debra Leggieri ("Leggieri") worried that Zachary would try to pick up (and use) Kravchenko's pain medication from Sheeley's while Kravchenko was in the hospital. To prevent this, Leggieri called Sheeley's and placed a restriction on who could pick up Kravchenko's prescriptions. Leggieri informed Sheeley's that Kravchenko was in the hospital and requested that her prescriptions not be released to anyone other than Kravchenko or her boyfriend.

On March 16, 2016, Cody was suffering from an unknown illness. Cody told his parents that he was experiencing flu-like symptoms, so they picked him up in Kutztown and drove him to a hospital in Scranton where he was diagnosed with a headache, given intravenous morphine, and discharged early the next morning. While Cody was in the hospital, he was simultaneously texting Zachary, saying things like "I just got a morphine drip haha try that out[.]" Sheeley's Motion for Summary Judgment, 11/30/2018, at Exh. C, p.10 (R.R. 612). Zachary told Cody that he was experiencing withdrawal symptoms, and the two exchanged text messages discussing various ways they could potentially obtain more drugs.

On the same day Cody was discharged, Zachary called Sheeley's pretending to be his mother and asked about refilling Kravchenko's OxyContin prescription. Iannielli, who was the pharmacist on-duty at the time, told "Kravchenko" that her OxyContin prescription could not be filled yet, but that she had a prescription for fentanyl patches¹ ready to be picked up. "Kravchenko" told Iannielli that she wanted to send her son to pick up the patches, but stated that he did not have a driver's license or other form of identification. Iannielli told the caller that this would not be a problem, since he personally knew and would recognize Zachary.

Zachary then sent Cody a text message asking him to drive him to Sheeley's, stating, "there [sic] supposed to give me something." Id. at Exh. C, p.14 (R.R. at 616). Cody agreed to drive Zachary to the pharmacy, and the two exchanged several more messages discussing whether they could make it to Sheeley's before it closed at 9:00 p.m. Cody then drove Zachary to Sheeley's, where Zachary successfully picked up Kravchenko's medication even though, according to Zachary, the pharmacy receipt explicitly stated, "[d]o not give to son." Deposition of Zachary Ross, 7/19/2018, at (R.R. at 345); see also id. ("And then even on the bag they gave me it said do not give [it] to me because I was a drug addict."). The two then went to a nearby Sheetz, where they unsuccessfully tried to purchase drugs from Cody's friend.

On the drive back to Zachary's house, Zachary punctured one of the fentanyl patches with a knife and consumed some of the drug. After arriving at Zachary's house, Cody at some point consumed fentanyl from one of the patches, smoked marijuana, and then fell asleep on the couch. Later that night, Zachary tried to wake Cody up, but he was unresponsive. Cody was later pronounced dead at a hospital. Zachary eventually pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and multiple drug offenses in connection with Cody's overdose.

In October 2016, Cody's father, Dale Albert ("Albert"), filed a negligence suit against Sheeley's—both individually and on behalf of his son's estate—in which he sought wrongful death and survival damages. Albert's complaint alleged that Sheeley's negligently allowed Zachary to pick up his mother's fentanyl prescription, which proximately caused Cody's overdose and death. Sheeley's sought summary judgment, arguing that Albert's suit is barred by the wrongful conduct rule, otherwise known as the in pari delicto doctrine.

In pari delicto is an equitable doctrine that precludes plaintiffs from recovering damages if their cause of action is based, at least partially, on their own illegal conduct.²

Joyce v. Erie Ins. Exch ., 74 A.3d 157, 164 (Pa. Super. 2013) ("[O]ur law will not allow recovery when an action is grounded in illegal behavior."). The rule is rooted in the theory that courts should not lend their aid to a plaintiff whose cause of action stems from his or her own illegal conduct. See Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Educ. & Rsch. Found. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP , 605 Pa. 269, 989 A.2d 313, 329 (2010) ("In this Commonwealth, as elsewhere, in pari delicto serves the public interest by relieving courts from lending their offices to mediating disputes among wrongdoers, as well as by deterring illegal conduct.").

The trial court below entered judgment for Sheeley's, concluding that the in pari delicto doctrine bars recovery given that Cody's death was caused, at least partially, by his own criminal conduct: possessing and consuming a controlled substance that was not prescribed to him.³ Albert then appealed to the Superior Court,⁴ arguing that the in pari delicto doctrine is inapplicable because Cody did not engage in illegal conduct. In this regard, Albert claimed that "the ingestion of controlled substances is not illegal, and [Cody] did not have any role in the fraud perpetrated by [Zachary]." Albert v. Sheeley's Drug Store, Inc ., 234 A.3d 820, 824 (Pa. Super. 2020).

The Superior Court unanimously rejected Albert's argument. Writing for the panel, Judge Stabile observed that the undisputed evidence establishes that Cody took part in Zachary's scheme to obtain his mother's fentanyl. Specifically, the record shows that: (1) the two exchanged text messages about needing to get to Sheeley's before 9 p.m. to obtain the prescription; (2) Cody drove Zachary to Sheeley's; (3) Cody waited in the car while Zachary obtained the fentanyl; and (4) Cody consumed some of the fentanyl after arriving at Zachary's house.

Moreover, Judge Stabile explained, Albert failed to rebut (or even address) the trial court's conclusion that Cody stood in pari delicto with Sheeley's because he possessed a controlled substance in violation of a criminal statute. Id. at 824 (citing 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), which prohibits an individual from "knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled or counterfeit substance ... unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription order or order of a practitioner"). Given Cody's participation in the scheme to obtain fentanyl and his illegal possession of the drug in violation of Pennsylvania law, the court concluded that Cody "was an active, voluntary participant in the wrongful conduct or transaction(s)" for which Albert sought redress and therefore bore "substantially equal or greater responsibility" for the underlying illegality as compared to Sheeley's. Albert , 234 A.3d at 824. Thus, the panel affirmed the trial court's decision entering judgment for Sheeley's based on the in pari delicto doctrine.⁵

Albert then filed a petition for allowance of appeal with this Court, which we granted to consider whether the lower courts correctly applied the in pari delicto doctrine.⁶ Broadly speaking, Albert has three main arguments before this Court. First, Albert argues that the trial court had no basis to conclude, at the summary judgment stage, that Cody was an active participant in Zachary's scheme to deceive Sheeley's into releasing Kravchenko's medication. Second, he contends that the illegal possession of a controlled substance is not the sort of crime for which the in pari delicto doctrine was intended to bar recovery. Lastly, Albert claims that the Superior Court's decision conflicts with comparative negligence principles, given that the lower courts essentially weighed Cody's relative blameworthiness against that of Sheeley's. See Brief for Albert at 25 ("[Cody] did ingest the fatal drug, but this is an issue of comparative negligence, not an absolute bar to recovery.").

Like many states, Pennsylvania follows the "classic formulation" of in pari delicto . Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors , 989 A.2d at 329 (quoting Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner , 472 U.S. 299, 306-07, 105 S.Ct. 2622, 86 L.Ed.2d 215 (1985) ). As explained above, the in pari delicto doctrine precludes plaintiffs from recovering damages if their cause of action is based at least partially on their own illegal...