Grey v. Walgreen Co.
197 Ohio App. 3d 418
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Grey appealed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal of a class-action against Walgreen for alleged overcharging workers’ compensation claimants for prescription drugs.
- Grey alleged Walgreen charged more than the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) allowed amount under the outpatient pharmacy-benefits program.
- R.C. 4121.44(K) prohibits charging amounts in excess of the allowed amount; the statute provides enforcement by the attorney general or self-insuring employers, not private individuals.
- Grey claimed the bureau later allowed her claim and reimbursed only the scheduled amount, which was less than what Walgreen charged.
- The district court in Patterson concluded there was no private right of action under §4121.44(K) and that enforcement rests with the state.
- The court also addressed unjust-enrichment claims, concluding they fail where a contract governs the pricing and no private right of action exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grey has a private right of action under R.C. 4121.44(K). | Grey asserts a private remedy exists for overcharges to workers’ comp claimants. | Walgreen contends §4121.44(K) contains no private action, only governmental enforcement. | No private right of action; enforcement lies with the attorney general or self-insuring employers. |
| Whether Grey can state a cognizable unjust-enrichment claim against Walgreen. | Walgreen’s conduct breached the bureau’s billing program, unjustly enriching Walgreen. | Plaintiff relied on the bureau’s rules but no contract bound Walgreen to the bureau’s pricing; unjust enrichment barred by express contracts. | Unjust-enrichment claim dismissed; contract governs pricing and private action barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. Rite Aid Corp. Headquarters, 752 F.Supp.2d 811 (N.D. Ohio E.D. 2010) (no private right of action under §4121.44(K); enforcement by state)
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (Supreme Court 1975) (test for implied private rights of action in statutory schemes)
- Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (Supreme Court 1979) (statutory private-right determination is a matter of construction)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (Supreme Court 2001) (focus on congressional intent to create private rights and remedies)
- Wisniewski v. Rodale, Inc., 510 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2007) (two-step inquiry: personal right and private remedy necessity)
- Fawcett v. G.C. Murphy & Co., 46 Ohio St.2d 245 (1976) (no private action unless clear implication by General Assembly)
- Hoops v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio, 50 Ohio St.3d 97 (1990) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle in statutory interpretation)
- State v. Buehler, 113 Ohio St.3d 114 (2007) (premise of legislative intent in enacting statutes)