Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co.

Decision Date21 February 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 4:17–CV–0979 RLW
Citation310 F.Supp.3d 1002
Parties PARK IRMAT DRUG CORP., Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY and Express Scripts, Inc., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

Elizabeth Taras, Pro Hac Vice, David Scupp, Matthew L. Cantor, Constantine Cannon LLP, New York, NY, Richard B. Korn, Fox Galvin, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.

Christopher A. Smith, Jason Husgen, Sarah C. Hellmann, Husch Blackwell, LLP, St. Louis, MO, Evan R. Kreiner, Pro Hac Vice, James A. Keyte, Pro Hac Vice, Luke T. Taeschler, Pro Hac Vice, Matthew Michael Martino, Pro Hac Vice, Patrick G. Rideout, Pro Hac Vice, Peter S. Julian, Pro Hac Vice, Robert A. Fumerton, Pro Hac Vice, Skadden and Arps, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case is before the Court on the motion of Express Scripts Holding Company and Express Scripts, Inc., to dismiss for failure to state a claim the eight-count complaint filed against them by Park Irmat Corp. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted.

Background

Accepting as true the allegations in the complaint, see Tension Envelope Corp. v JBM Envelope Corp., 876 F.3d 1112, 1116 (8th Cir. 2017), the following gave rise to this action.

Express Scripts Holding Company and Express Scripts, Inc. (collectively referred to in the complaint as "Express Scripts") administer pharmacy benefits for third parties and also own and operate a mail-order pharmacy. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 18; ECF No. 1.) Express Scripts is the largest pharmacy benefits manager ("PBM") in the United States, with over 97 percent of all retail pharmacies participating in its network. (Id. ¶ 17.) A PBM "manage[s] the pharmacy benefits for health plans and self-insured entities, negotiate[s] drug discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and develop[s] ... lists of drugs approved for reimbursement." (Id. ¶ 28.) The decision of which PBM to use is made by patients' health insurance plans, which are usually chosen by patients' employers. (Id. ¶ 29.) "For a pharmacy that is not owned by a PBM to operate successfully, it is essential for the pharmacy to participate in all of the largest PBMs' networks, including Express Scripts'." (Id. ¶ 30.) To do so, independent pharmacies either contract directly with PBMS or indirectly through the pharmacy's agent, usually a Pharmacy Services Administrative Organization ("PSAO"). (Id. ¶ 31.)

Park Irmat Corp. ("Irmat"), a New York-based pharmacy in business since 1978, began concentrating on dermatological pharmaceuticals in 2013. (Id. ¶ 34–35.) "As Irmat's dermatology business began to flourish, Irmat agreed to participate in patient assistance programs sponsored by leading drug manufacturers." (Id. ¶ 36.) Under such a program, the manufacturer covers a portion of the patient's insurance co-payment, thereby "allow[ing] patients to obtain medications that their doctors prescribe without having to make burdensome ... co-payments ...." (Id. ) Participation in these programs provided Irmat with the "opportunity to significantly expand its business." (Id. ) "[The] manufacturers provided Irmat with marketing channels and a potential customer base that extended nationwide." (Id. ¶ 37.) Consequently, "Irmat could no longer confine its operations to its Park Avenue storefront... [and] began providing mail-order services to customers throughout the country." (Id. ) "From 2012 to 2015, Irmat's business grew exponentially, both in revenue and geographic scope." (Id. ) Its staff drew from 20 employees in 2012 to a high of 208. (Id. ) Also in 2012, Irma enrolled with a PSAO, AccessHealth, thereby gaining access to over 100 payors' pharmacy networks, including Express Scripts. (Id. ¶ 40.)

In October 2014, Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI") sent a Pharmacy Provider Agreement (the "Agreement"). (Compl. Ex. 3.) This Agreement provided, in relevant part,

1.4 "Pharmacy" or "Pharmacies" means the pharmacy or pharmacies listed on Exhibit B ... which are owned or operated by Provider, ... meets the definition of Retail Provider (as defined in Section 1.8) and has been approved by ESI to provide services hereunder....
1.8 "Retail Provider" shall mean a pharmacy that primarily fills and sells prescriptions via a retail, storefront location, is determined by ESI to fulfill an ESI business need with respect to participation in its retail network(s), and meets such other criteria established by ESI from time to time including any specific needs of a population, as determined by ESI in its sole discretion. "Retail Provider" shall not include mail order, specialty, home infusion, dispensing physician or internet pharmacies or such other provider types that do not meet ESI's Retail Provider criteria established from time to time.
2.2. b Credentialing and Recredentialing. Provider and its Pharmacies shall be eligible to provide services hereunder, including dispensing Covered Medications, only upon satisfaction of any credentialing/recredentialing and additional requirements imposed by ESI, including the providing of prompt written notice with any updates to the Provider Certification, as further prescribed in the Provider Manual. Failure to provide prompt updated information to the Provider Certification or to comply with Provider's obligations ... or any other credentialing/recredentialing requirements required by ESI from time to time shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and ESI may terminate Provider ... in ESI's sole discretion.
4.1 Term. Unless earlier terminated as provided in Section 4.2 of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and continue for a period of three (3) years ...
4.2 Termination.
4.2. a Without Cause. This Agreement may be terminated by ESI without cause upon at least thirty (30) days written notice to Provider ..., with such termination effective at the end of such notice period.
4.2. b Breach. In the event a party defaults in the performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement (the "Defaulting Party"), the other party (the "Non–Defaulting Party") may give written notice to the Defaulting Party of such breach.... These rights and remedies are in addition to any and all other rights that exist or are available or may exist or be available to ESI pursuant to this Agreement, at law or in equity.
4.2. c Immediate Termination. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Section 4.2.b, ESI shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement upon written notice to Provider in the event that ... (v) [Provider] no longer meets credentialing requirements ....
7.9 Waiver. No waiver of a breach of any covenant or condition shall be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach.
No act, delay, or omission done, suffered, or permitted by the parties shall be deemed to exhaust or impair any right, remedy, or power of the parties hereunder.

(Compl. Ex. 3 at 4, 5, 8, 12.) Irmat was identified in the Agreement as the Pharmacy. (Id. at 3.) No pharmacies were listed on the Exhibit B form. (Id. at 16.)

In July 2015, Irmat was required by ESI to submit a re-credentialing application. (Compl. ¶ 44 & Ex. 1.) This application included eight practice types. (Ex. 1. at 6, 22.) Irmat checked "Open Door Retail/Community" and "Mail Order." (Id. ) The former was 35 percent of its business; the latter was 65 percent. (Id. ) Of the mail order business, 5 percent was local and 95 percent was out-of-state. (Id. ) The application also asked, among other things, the names and license numbers of the pharmacists, the Drug and Enforcement Administration and the Medicaid license numbers of the pharmacy, the hours of operation, whether the pharmacy was an open-door pharmacy that filled prescriptions for walk-in customers, whether the pharmacy had been the subject of any disciplinary or legal action, and whether the pharmacy provided any compounding services. (Id. at 6–12, 22–30.) In response to a question whether the pharmacy had previously participated in an ESI or Medco1 pharmacy network, Irmat replied it had as of June 2013. (Id. at 23.) The completed application was submitted on July 31, 2015. (Id. at 18, 30.)

On August 7, ESI sent Irmat a two-sentence email. (Compl. ¶ 45 & Ex. 2 at 2.) The subject was "Express Scripts credentials approved" and the signatory was "Express Scripts Provider Credentialing." (Ex. 2 at 2.) The first sentence read: "We are pleased to inform you that your recently submitted credentials have been reviewed and you are approved to continue in the Express Scripts Holding Company pharmacy networks." (Id. ) The other sentence read: "To access member and claims information, Payer Sheets and regulatory information register at our Pharmacist Resource Center." (Id. ) It was sent from an email box that did not receive emails but had the name of "Ingrid Dominguez" at the top. (Id. ) There is no indication of what position at Express Scripts Ms. Dominguez held; she did not sign the Agreement. (Id. ; Compl Ex. 1–3 at 14.)

Relying on the first sentence, "Irmat made substantial investments in its mail-order business," including "hir[ing] scores of employees, construct[ing] a multi-million dollar facility in New York," and spending "considerable time and resources to obtain" two pharmaceutical industry accreditations. (Id. ¶ 46.)

In May 2016, "Express Scripts sent Irmat a cease-and-desist letter." (Id. ¶ 47.) The primary infraction allegedly committed by Irmat "was dispensing medications to Express Scripts members by mail." (Id. ) "Express Scripts' letter wrongly claimed that Irmat misrepresented the nature of its pharmacy operations." (Id. ) Other alleged infractions included "fail[ing] to use its best efforts to achieve formulary compliance" and discounting member copayments. (Id. ¶ 48–49.) The latter apparently referred to the co-payment assistance programs Irmat participated in with drug manufacturers. (Id. ¶ 49.) Both allegations were incorrect. (Id. ¶ 48–49.)

I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Troia v. Tinder, Inc., 4:19-CV-1647 RLW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • February 10, 2020
    ...position; the terms of the agreement were one-sided; and the plaintiff was without counsel." Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co., 310 F. Supp. 3d 1002, 1023 (E.D. Mo.), aff'd, 911 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2018). Although this Court is at the Motion to Dismiss state, the allegatio......
  • Lakes & Parks Alliance of Minneapolis v. Metro. Council
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • February 27, 2018
    ... ... Louis Park and locate the SWLRT at grade in the Corridor, ... Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d ... ...
  • In re Pork Antitrust Litig., Civil No. 18-1776 (JRT/LIB)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • August 8, 2019
    ...of interfirm communication exist[ing] in conjunction with the parallelactions," amongst others. Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co., 310 F. Supp. 3d 1002, 1013 (E.D. Mo. 2018) (quotations omitted). Plaintiffs argue that their complaints allege parallel conduct and plus fact......
  • Brunk v. Conseco Bank Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • April 9, 2019
    ...an interest rate reduction, Conseco Bank was doing exactly what the note permitted it to do. Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co., 310 F.Supp.3d 1002, 1023 (E.D. Mo. 2018); see also Bishop & Assocs., LLC. v. Ameren Corp., 520 S.W.3d 463, 471 (Mo. banc. 2017). The admitted fa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT