Correa v. Schoeck
98 N.E.3d 191
Mass.2018Background
- Yarushka Rivera, diagnosed with seizure disorder, needed Topamax; MassHealth required a prior authorization (PA) for beneficiaries over 18.
- Walgreens (pharmacy) received MassHealth denials and, according to plaintiff, repeatedly told Rivera and her family it would notify her neurologist (Dr. Schoeck) of the required PA; pharmacy records do not show such notifications and Schoeck says he was not notified.
- Rivera was unable to obtain the medication after August 2009, suffered a fatal seizure in October 2009, and her mother sued Walgreens, Dr. Schoeck, and his practice for wrongful death and punitive damages.
- The Superior Court granted Walgreens summary judgment, concluding Walgreens owed no legal duty to notify the prescriber; claims against Schoeck/NENA were stayed and accrual of prejudgment interest was also stayed.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed as to Walgreens, holding Walgreens owed a limited duty to take reasonable steps to notify both the patient and the prescribing physician of a PA requirement each time the patient attempted to fill the prescription, but not a duty to ensure the physician actually received or acted on the notice. The stay of prejudgment interest was vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walgreens owed a legal duty to notify the prescribing physician when insurer required a PA | Walgreens had a duty (or voluntarily assumed it) to notify the prescriber of PA requirement; failure proximately caused death | No legal duty to notify prescriber; at most duty to notify patient; pharmacies unfamiliar with controlling physician conduct | Walgreens owed a limited duty to take reasonable steps to notify both patient and prescriber each time PA blocked coverage, but not to follow up until prescriber completes PA or to ensure receipt |
| Whether industry practice or regulations impose such a duty | Industry practice shows pharmacies routinely notify prescribers; pharmacists are part of patient care continuum | Notification to prescribers is mere courtesy and not a legal obligation | Industry customs, statutory/regulatory duties to counsel and perform prospective drug review support recognizing a limited duty to notify prescribers |
| Scope of duty—must pharmacy confirm prescriber received/acted on notice? | Plaintiff sought an obligation to follow up until PA completed | Walgreens argued no obligation to supervise or control physicians; follow-up would be onerous | Duty does not require follow-up or assurance of receipt/action; reasonable notification is sufficient |
| Whether prejudgment interest accrual could be stayed as to remaining defendants | Plaintiff: interest should accrue; statutory language mandatory | Schoeck/NENA argued equities support stay during appeal to avoid windfall | Stay of prejudgment interest was erroneous; statutory accrual is mandatory and stay vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy, 436 Mass. 316 (2002) (pharmacists generally not required to warn patients of general drug side effects; exception for customer-specific risks)
- Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141 (2006) (duty is a question of law guided by social policy and foreseeability)
- Afarian v. Massachusetts Elec. Co., 449 Mass. 257 (2007) (elements of negligence; duty requirement)
- Andreotalla v. Gaeta, 260 Mass. 105 (1927) (historical recognition of pharmacy duty to fill prescriptions correctly)
- Nesci v. Angelo, 249 Mass. 508 (1924) (early pharmacy duty precedents)
- McKee v. American Home Prods. Corp., 113 Wash. 2d 701 (1989) (learned intermediary doctrine and its rationale)
- Klasch v. Walgreen Co., 127 Nev. 832 (2011) (pharmacist duty to warn when customer-specific risk known)
- Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 179 (2002) (narrow duty to warn where pharmacy has patient-specific allergy information)
- Turcotte v. DeWitt, 333 Mass. 389 (1955) (statutory guidance on prejudgment interest in wrongful death actions)
- USM Corp. v. Marson Fastener Corp., 392 Mass. 334 (1984) (balancing equities in awarding prejudgment interest in certain contexts)
- Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 402 Mass. 385 (1988) (prejudgment interest compensates for loss of use of money)