Commonwealth v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 August 2011 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff v. TAP PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, INC.; Abbott Laboratories; AstraZeneca PLC; AstraZeneca, Holdings, Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; AstraZeneca LP; Bayer AG; Bayer Corporation; SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline; Pfizer, Inc.; Pharmacia Corporation; Johnson & Johnson; Alza Corporation; Centocor, Inc.; Ethicon, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical Products, L.P.; McNeil–PPC, Inc.; Ortho Biotech, Inc.; Ortho Biotech Products, L.P.; Ortho–McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc; Amgen, Inc.; Immunex Corporation; Bristol–Myers Squibb Company; Baxter International Inc.; Baxter Healthcare Corporation; Immuno–U.S., Inc.; Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Aventis Behring, L.L.C.; Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ben Venue Laboratories; Bedford Laboratories; Roxane Laboratories; Schering–Plough Corporation; Warrick Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Schering Sales Corporation; Dey, Inc., Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Philadelphia, and William O. Crutchlow, Edison, NJ, for plaintiff.
Allen. S. Loney, Jr., Philadelphia, Steven M. Edwards, New York, NY, and Michael C. Moore, Dallas, TX, for defendant Bristol–Myers Squibb.
Jack Mentzer Stover, Harrisburg, for defendants Bristol–Myers Squibb and Johnson & Johnson.BEFORE: LEADBETTER, President Judge, and SIMPSON, Judge (P), and FEUDALE, Senior Judge.
This complex original jurisdiction action, which comes before a panel of this Court for a third time, involves the pricing of pharmaceuticals reimbursed by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW), which administers Pennsylvania's Medicaid program, and by the Department of Aging, which administers the Pharmaceutical Assistance Contract for the Elderly (PACE) program, based on Average Wholesale Price (AWP) between 1991 and 2008.
In particular, the Commonwealth, through its ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Abbott Labs.
...because it described even more disagreements among that actors feeding information to the state. Cf. Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Prods., 36 A.3d 1112, 1152 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011)‘[G]iven the trial judge's findings regarding the significant confusion over AWP, we reject [the] argument that it ......
-
Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC
...provoked reliance by "induc[ing] or influenc[ing] the plaintiff's [or his agent's] course of conduct," Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Prods., Inc. , 36 A.3d 1112, 1144 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011), vacated on other grounds , 626 Pa. 25, 94 A.3d 364 (2014) (mem.) (per curiam).The complaint does not mee......
-
Commonwealth v. Golden Gate Nat'l Senior Care LLC
...provision of the statute. The Pennsylvania courts have not provided a clear answer to this question. In Commonwealth v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products , [36 A.3d 1112 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), vacated and remanded , 626 Pa. 1, 94 A.3d 350 (2014),] the trial court analyzed the term ‘person’ and concl......
-
Harp v. El Bahdry Rahme, Civil Action No. 12–02401.
...(2) an overt act done in pursuance of the common purpose; and (3) actual legal damage.” Pennsylvania v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 36 A.3d 1112, 1114 (Pa.Commw.Ct.2011) (citations omitted). Additionally, “proof of malice, or an intent to injure, is ... an essential part of a cause o......