Reynolds v. Walgreen Co.
| Decision Date | 02 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | NUMBER 2021 CA 1049 |
| Parties | Jeffrey REYNOLDS and Micky Reynolds v. WALGREEN CO., Walgreen Louisiana Co., ABC Insurance Company, XYZ Insurance Company, and Jyl Feske |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Michelle L. Rees, Jennifer Bonneau, New Orleans, LA And Mark D. Kuss, Metairie, LA, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants, Jeffrey Reynolds and Micky Reynolds
Kurt S. Blakenship, Ryan J. Roemershauser, Kelly M. Brian, Metairie, LA, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees, Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc. and Walgreen Company
Roy K. Burns, Covington, LA, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Jyl Feske
BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Plaintiffs, Micky Reynolds and Jeffrey Reynolds, appeal from a trial court judgment granting an exception raising the objection of prescription and dismissing their claims against Walgreen Louisiana Company, Inc. (Walgreen) with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Micky Reynolds had a previous relationship with Kevin Quartrevingt, which resulted in the birth of a child, K.Q. Thereafter, Mrs. Reynolds married Jeffrey Reynolds and Mr. Quatrevingt became involved with Jyl Feske. At the time, Ms. Feske was employed by Walgreen as a pharmacy technician at the store located at 2800 Highway 190, Mandeville, Louisiana. On April 1, 2015, Mrs. Reynolds created her own individual account on walgreens.com. Mrs. Reynolds thereafter created an individual account for K.Q. on walgreens.com on June 11, 2015, and added K.Q.’s account to Mrs. Reynolds's family prescription account. The Reynolds regularly filled prescriptions at the Walgreen store located at 1901 Barataria Boulevard, Marrero, Louisiana.
Thereafter, Mrs. Reynolds and Mr. Quatrevingt became engaged in a bitter custody dispute over K.Q. During an August 2, 2016 custody hearing, Mrs. Reynolds told the court she had been blocked from accessing K.Q.’s Walgreen's accounts and that someone had changed her contact information on the account. Mrs. Reynolds recognized the phone number listed on the account as belonging to Ms. Feske. Mrs. Reynolds stated that she reported the issue to Walgreen and initiated a "HIPPA" complaint against Ms. Feske.
Mrs. Reynolds subsequently filed a motion for sole custody on October 21, 2016. In her motion, Mrs. Reynolds alleged, among other things, that she had filed a complaint with Walgreen because Ms. Feske, while working at Walgreen, went into K.Q. and Mrs. Reynolds's private and confidential prescription records and, in the process of changing the phone number on the account, blocked Mrs. Reynolds from the account and illegally obtained confidential information regarding Mrs. Reynolds's second pregnancy with Mr. Reynolds. Mrs. Reynolds stated that she also reported the matter to "HIPPA." Thereafter, on October 31, 2016, Mrs. Reynolds filed a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) alleging Walgreen had violated federal standards for privacy and recounted the allegations from her motion for sole custody.
During a June 12, 2017 custody hearing, Mrs. Reynolds was questioned by Mr. Quatrevignt's counsel, whereupon Mrs. Reynolds was asked if Mr. Reynolds had taken a specific medication. At the hearing on June 16, 2017, Mr. Quatrevignt admitted that Ms. Feske accessed the Reynolds's records at Walgreen at his request and admitted that Ms. Feske told him she saw Mr. Reynolds's records in trying to find K.Q.’s records, and told him about the medication Mr. Reynolds was taking.
Thereafter, on August 14, 2017, Mrs. Reynolds began communicating with an investigator for Walgreen, Blake Orlando. Mrs. Reynolds received an email from Mr. Orlando on October 5, 2017, with contents of a report from Walgreen's IT Department detailing how family accounts at walgreen.com work and stating that while Ms. Feske would have been able to add K.Q. to her own family account and see her information, she would not have been able to access the information of Mrs. Reynolds, Mr. Reynolds, or their other children at walgreen.com. However, the report recognized that Ms. Feske, as an employee with access to Walgreen's pharmacy system, would have been able to view K.Q.’s information through that system. Mr. Orlando thereafter advised Mrs. Reynolds on February 23, 2018, that he had reviewed further information and would be drafting breach letters, would mail the letters to Mrs. Reynolds, and would report the HIPPA violations to OCR.
On April 13, 2018, Walgreen mailed the breach letters to the Reynolds. With regard to Mrs. Reynolds, Walgreen apologized for the inappropriate activity of its pharmacy employee at the Mandeville store that may have occurred at various times between May 2014 and June 12, 2015. Walgreen noted this inappropriate activity may have included impermissibly accessing her pharmacy profile and reviewing her prescription records and further disclosing a potential medical condition based on a specific medication to a third party. With regard to Mr. Reynolds, Walgreen also apologized for the inappropriate activity of its pharmacy employee at the Mandeville store that may have occurred on June 12, 2015. Walgreen noted that this inappropriate activity may have included impermissibly accessing his pharmacy profile and reviewing his prescription records and further disclosing his name and medical condition to a third party.
Thereafter, on February 12, 2019, the Reynolds filed a petition for damages, naming Walgreen, Walgreen Co., their insurers, and Ms. Feske as defendants. The Reynolds alleged that Ms. Feske was employed as a pharmacy technician by Walgreen and pursuant to her employment, she had access to the Walgreen computer system. The Reynolds alleged that at various times between May 4, 2014 and June 12, 2015, Ms. Feske, acting in the course and scope of her employment with Walgreen, impermissibly accessed Mrs. Reynolds's pharmacy profile containing confidential, private patient information through Walgreen's computer system and in doing so, reviewed Mrs. Reynolds's prescription records for an unauthorized purpose and thereafter disclosed the contents of her profile, including a potential medical condition based on a specific medication, to third parties including Mr. Quatrevignt. Additionally, the Reynolds alleged that on June 15, 2015, Ms. Feske, acting in the course and scope of her employment with Walgreen, impermissibly accessed Mr. Reynolds's pharmacy profile containing confidential, private patient information through the computer system belonging to Walgreen and in doing so, reviewed Mr. Reynolds's prescription records for an unauthorized purpose and disclosed certain contents of that profile, including but not limited to Mr. Reynolds's name and medication name, to third parties, including Mr. Quatrevingt. The Reynolds further alleged that Mr. Quatrevignt relayed the information he obtained to his attorney, who used the Reynolds's confidential, private patient information at trial in his custody case against Mrs. Reynolds. The Reynolds acknowledged that they filed complaints with OCR on June 13, 2017, reporting the incident involving Ms. Feske and reported the incident to Walgreens.
The Reynolds further asserted that contra non valentem applied to prevent the running of prescription because the cause of action was neither known nor reasonably knowable by them until Walgreen received additional supporting evidence to conclude their investigation and report their findings to OCR and the Reynolds on April 13, 2018.
Walgreen thereafter filed an exception raising the objection of prescription on July 20, 2020, asserting that the Reynolds had not filed suit within one year of the alleged negligence or discovery of that negligence by them. Walgreen asserted that the Reynolds had constructive knowledge at least by October 31, 2016, when Mrs. Reynolds filed her first OCR complaint based on actions of Ms. Feske and the Reynolds had actual knowledge on June 12 and June 16, 2017, when it was confirmed in open court that Ms. Feske had accessed their pharmacy profiles and obtained public health information from the Reynolds, which was thereafter shared with third parties. As such, Walgreen asserted that the Reynolds had enough information to excite attention for years before filing the petition for damages and were actively engaged in filing OCR complaints and therefore, could not rely on ignorance. Walgreen submitted copies of the transcript from the June 12 and 16, 2017 custody hearing in support of its exception.
In opposition to the exception, the Reynolds asserted that the earliest they had sufficient notice to pursue a claim against Walgreen was February 23, 2018, when Mr. Orlando advised that he would be drafting breach letters to mail to the Reynolds and would be reporting HIPPA violations to OCR. The Reynolds asserted that before that time, they did not know Walgreen was at fault or that they were victims of a tort. Additionally, the Reynolds asserted that Walgreen prevented them from asserting their cause of action by engaging in conduct rising to the level of misrepresentation if not fraud on October 5, 2017 when Mr. Orlando emailed Mrs. Reynolds and reported Walgreen's IT findings. The Reynolds submitted copies of transcripts from the custody hearings as well as emails between Mrs. Reynolds and Mr. Orlando in connection with their opposition.
Following a hearing on the exception, the trial court signed a judgment on January 28, 2021, granting Walgreen's exception and dismissing the Reynolds's claims with prejudice. The Reynolds thereafter filed a motion for new trial on February 22, 2021. Following a hearing, the trial court signed a judgment denying the Reynolds's motion. The Reynolds now appeal from the trial court's January 28, 2021 judgment granting Walgreen's exception and dismissing their claims against it with prejudice.
Delictual actions are subject to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial