Smith v. Walgreens Boots All., Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-05451-CRB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | SUSAN SMITH, Plaintiff, v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Before the Court is a putative class action brought on behalf of chronic pain patients1 against two sets of pharmacies in connection with the pharmacies' distribution of opioid drugs. This case is a companion to City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 3:18-cv-07591-CRB (hereinafter, "Purdue"). In Purdue, this Court held that the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") imposes a duty upon distributors of opioids to "identify, report, and refrain" from filling suspicious opioid orders. See Purdue, No. 3:18-cv-07591-CRB (dkt. 285 at 5-7). The Court found that entities in the opioids stream-of-commerce are obligated to "provide effective controls and procedures to guard against theft and diversion of controlled substances." Id. at 6. The Purdue litigation seeks to hold opioids manufacturers and distributors accountable for notdoing enough to stem the illicit opioids economy. Here, Plaintiff argues that Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. ("WBA"), WAGDCO, LLC ("WAGDCO" and together with WBA, "Walgreens"), Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco"), and Does 1-10 ("Does") (collectively, "Defendants") have gone too far in their efforts to prevent the unlawful sale of opioids. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have indeed violated federal discrimination statutes and California law by interfering with the class's access to opioids. Defendants have moved to dismiss, and, as explained below, the Court will do so.
It is by now well-known that the United States has been suffering from an opioid crisis for decades. See FAC (dkt. 13) ¶ 42-44. Toward the mid-2000s, public health officials became alarmed by increasing opioid fatalities, setting off a chain reaction in public health policy, government enforcement actions, and civil litigation. Id. Simultaneously, the United States has been dealing with another crisis: the chronic pain epidemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC"), in 2016 alone, an estimated 50 million Americans suffered from chronic pain. Id. ¶ 37 . In addition to high levels of daily pain, people with chronic pain often suffer from depression and anxiety and commit suicide at a higher rate than the general population. FAC ¶ 38.
In the 2010's, the CDC and the American Medical Association ("AMA") each began to publish guidelines around properly prescribing opioids. Id. ¶ 46. CDC GuidelineRecommendations 5 and 6 (issued in 2016) are particularly relevant here:
Later, both the CDC and the AMA would disavow these 2016 Opioid Prescribing Guidelines, acknowledging they have led to poor outcomes for certain patients in need of opioid medication. Id. ¶ 51-54. Named Plaintiff Susan Smith is one of these patients. Id. ¶ 68. Mrs. Smith was diagnosed with Epilepsy at the age of 17, crashed her car while driving in June 2010, and among other things, developed chronic back pain as a result of the accident and subsequent surgeries. Id. ¶ 69. In 2011, the Social Security Administration found Mrs. Smith to be disabled. Id. Today, Mrs. Smith suffers not only from Chronic Pain Syndrome (which causes pain in her joints), but also regular migraines, seizures, chest pain, and heart palpitations. Id. ¶ 69-71.2 Because Mrs. Smith has many medical allergies, the only medication she can use to relieve her pain are opioids. Id. ¶ 73, 76. Mrs. Smith has been prescribed Morphine for her chronic pain since 2011 and has taken the same dose, prescribed by the same physician, since 2012. Id. ¶ 76.
Mrs. Smith alleges that since 2012 she has faced "discrimination, ridicule and outright harassment" by pharmacists at Walgreens and Costco when attempting to pick up her opioid prescriptions. Id. ¶ 77. On one occasion, Mrs. Smith recalls that a Walgreens pharmacist required her doctor to fill out detailed medical forms before issuing her opioids but, when those forms were delivered, the pharmacist would not fill Mrs. Smith's prescription because the letter "i" in the word Morphine was not "dotted." Id. ¶ 79-80. When Mrs. Smith complained to Walgreens corporate, she reports being treated as "a nuisance or a drug addict." Id. ¶ 81. Likewise, in 2017, Mrs. Smith says that a Walgreens pharmacist "flatly refused" her prescription request for no apparent reason, except that the pharmacist told her, "maybe you should try rehab instead of pain meds." Id. ¶ 83. Mrs. Smith alleges several other incidents where she was denied opioids from Walgreens without cause. See id. ¶ 84-85.3 Mrs. Smith also reports that Costco mysteriously rejected her prescriptions for opioid medication without explanation. Id. ¶ 93. Both times, Mrs. Smith claims that she was "flatly told 'no'" by a Costco pharmacist when attempting to fill her opioid prescription. Id. ¶ 93. One pharmacy manager told her that Costco did not sell her medication and walked away. Id.
Mrs. Smith does not believe that she is alone. She seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals also allegedly harmed by pharmacists at Walgreens and Costco. The putative class consists of persons:
While the effect of Defendants' behavior is allegedly the same (i.e., harm in the form of compensatory damages and pain-and-suffering), the companies' policies are allegedly different. Plaintiff alleges that under Costco's policy, Costco "flatly refuse[s] to fill prescriptions for opioid medication or possibly for certain opioid medication, either as a matter of express or implicit policy." Id. ¶ 66.4
Walgreens, allegedly, has a more detailed policy. First, Plaintiff claims that Walgreens "blacklists" certain individuals and/or their prescribing physicians from seeking to fill opioid prescriptions, including Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 55. Second, Plaintiff alleges that, in or about 2013, Walgreens implemented hard limits on both the "dosage and duration" of opioid prescriptions (i.e., Walgreens refuses to sell opioids above a certain dose and duration). Id. ¶ 56. Third, Plaintiff claims that Walgreens does not sell opioids "unless accompanied with one or more prescriptions for non-opioid medication." Id. ¶ 57. Fourth, Plaintiff alleges that the Walgreens Policy requires that patients "provide comprehensive medical records" before purchasing opioids. Id. ¶ 58.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action on August 6, 2020, alleging that the prescription fulfillment practices of Walgreens and Costco discriminate on the basis of disability. See generally Compl. (dkt. 1).5 On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint ("FAC"), bringing suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794), the Anti-Discrimination Provisions of the Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. §18116), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code §51, et seq.), and California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Pro. Code §17200, et seq.). See FAC (dkt. 13) ¶ 97-148.
In response, on November 20, 2020, Defendants filed three motions to dismiss: (1) a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by WBA; (2) a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Walgreens; and (3) a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of Article III standing filed by Costco. WBA MTD (dkt. 35); Walgreens MTD (dkt. 36); Costco MTD (dkt. 41). Plaintiff filed individual responses to each (Pl. Response to Walgreens MTD (dkt. 53); Pl. Response to Costco MTD (dkt. 54); Pl. Response to WBA MTD (dkt. 55)) and Defendants filed their replies roughly two weeks later (WBA Reply (dkt. 56); Walgreens Reply (dkt. 57); Costco Reply (dkt. 58)). The Court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss on January 28, 2021. Mot. Hearing Minutes (dkt. 59).
After careful consideration of the parties' filings and oral arguments, and theapplicable law, the Court GRANTS...
To continue reading
Request your trial