Brown v. CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C.
2013 WL 5574486, 982 F.Supp.2d 793, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146025 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pharmacy's refusal to fill prescriptions for controlled substances from a physician under DEA investigation, and its truthful statements to patients that the physician is under investigation, do not constitute tortious interference with business relations or invasion of privacy where the pharmacy is exercising its professional and regulatory duty of care.
Facts:
- Dr. Joyce Brown operated a medical practice focused on pain relief, where she prescribed narcotic opioids to all of her patients.
- Beginning in early 2009, Dr. Brown's medical practice became the subject of an investigation by the Town of Smyrna Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
- On August 9, 2009, the DEA raided Dr. Brown’s clinic and confiscated patient records.
- Between 2009 and 2012, multiple patients of Dr. Brown reported that pharmacies operated by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and CVS refused to fill prescriptions she had written.
- In several of these instances, pharmacists informed the patients that the prescription was being denied because Dr. Brown was 'under investigation' by the DEA.
- Dr. Brown herself made the investigation public knowledge by filing a lawsuit against Smyrna police officers on October 2, 2009, which detailed the investigation into her practice.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Joyce Brown (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., K-Mart Corporation, and Tennessee CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C. (defendants).
- The complaint alleged intentional interference with business relations and invasion of privacy.
- All four defendants filed motions for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claims without a trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pharmacy's refusal to fill prescriptions for controlled substances written by a doctor under a DEA investigation, and its occasional truthful statements to patients that the doctor is under investigation, constitute intentional interference with business relations or invasion of privacy under Tennessee law?
Opinions:
Majority - Trauger, J.
No. A pharmacy's refusal to fill prescriptions under these circumstances and its truthful statements about the investigation do not constitute intentional interference with business relations or invasion of privacy. For the intentional interference claim, Dr. Brown failed to establish the required element of 'improper motive or improper means.' Federal and state regulations impose a 'corresponding responsibility' on pharmacists to ensure controlled substances are prescribed for a legitimate medical purpose, requiring them to exercise professional judgment. Refusing to fill opioid prescriptions from a doctor under a DEA raid and investigation is a reasonable exercise of that judgment, not an improper act. Dr. Brown also failed to produce evidence of intent to injure her, the loss of specific patients, or any resulting financial damages. For the invasion of privacy claim, the matter disclosed—the DEA investigation—was not 'private,' as Dr. Brown herself had made it public by filing prior lawsuits. Furthermore, the limited disclosures to a few individual patients do not meet the legal standard of 'publicity,' which requires communication to the public at large. Finally, the investigation into a physician's prescribing practices for controlled substances is a matter of legitimate public concern.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal and professional duties placed upon pharmacists when dispensing controlled substances. It grants pharmacists considerable latitude to refuse to fill prescriptions they deem questionable, particularly when a prescriber is under official investigation, without fear of liability for tortious interference. The ruling clarifies that actions taken in furtherance of regulatory obligations and professional judgment do not constitute 'improper means.' Additionally, the case provides a clear example of how a plaintiff can waive their privacy interests by placing otherwise private matters at issue in public litigation, thereby defeating a subsequent claim for invasion of privacy.
