A Lawsuit Complaint Filed by a whistle-Blower Charges That Caremark Violated Medicare Regulations
A recent article on the Caremark lawsuit tells of the legal wrangling, which resulted in a $2.75 million class action suit against CMR, a major maker of caremark products. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant manufacturers violated anti-spyware and anti-virus laws by not obtaining express permission before distributing the software and for failing to warn consumers of the risks attendant to the software. The complaint further alleged that the defendants failed to take reasonable precautions to protect consumers from the risk of harm associated with their product. It is important for this lawsuit to go forward, as it appears that the manufacturers did not act reasonably when handling customer information. This case is currently going before a jury.
Caremark Lawsuit
One of the parties involved in the case is PBM Corporation, and another one is Caremark, Inc. The plaintiff’s attorneys are seeking damages for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming that PBM and Caremark did not take reasonable precautions to protect consumers. The complaint also names CMR as a defendant, and says that the directors of both corporations knew or should have known that their products posed consumer harm, yet chose to disregard that fact. According to the complaint, there was a “lack of a fiduciary duty” in violation of the anti-spyware laws. The complaint further contends that the directors knew that the PBM distributor had authorization to distribute the software on behalf of Caremark and did nothing to correct this breach of faith.
The complaint further claims that the defendants knew or should have known that their products contained an unapproved program called EasyPay.
This program was included in a bundle of Caremark software, which were then distributed to pharmacies without offering a disclaimer that reads, “The statements concerning pharmacy benefits provided herein are not intended to substitute for professional medical advice.” These statements were also included in the manual that came with the product. The complaint further claims that defendants knew or should have known that their EasyPay software contained back doors that enabled unauthorized access to patient information, and that this conduct constitutes a breach of the trust between the company and its customers. Additionally, the complaint alleges that defendants did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the back door from being opened.
The complaint further states that the defendants did not take reasonable steps to train employees about the back door.
Furthermore, the complaint states that the defendants did not take reasonable measures to train their employees about the dangers of the back door and did not instruct their employees to report any problems they observed to the manufacturer. The complaint further states that it is “plaintiff’s position only that these deficiencies constitute negligence and constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.” It is not obvious at this point how the breach of fiduciary duty can be a breach of the primary warranty on the product, since the claim does not allege that Caremark failed to provide a warranty in the first place.
The complaint further claims that defendants violated the Anti-Spyware Protection Act by failing to instruct their distributors to install anti-spyware protection on all computers containing computers carrying prescription records of patients’ prescriptions.
In addition, plaintiffs contend that defendant did not instruct their employees to remove the prescription data after a patient’s prescriptions had been filled. Finally, plaintiffs argue that defendant did not instruct its employees to retain a log of the prescriptions so that it could track the manufacture, distribution, and receipt of prescriptions. As a result, plaintiffs argue that they were improperly subjected to an “advance” of the unlawful conduct complained of.
The plaintiffs are represented by private attorneys and are expected to receive monetary damages from defendants.
This is the first time that a whistle-blower case filed against a pharmaceutical company has been brought to court by an individual who had directly experienced the type of abuse allegedly committed by Caremark. However, even with the new private attorneys and a new lawsuit, the defendants have yet to file a response to plaintiffs’ complaint. A hearing date has been scheduled for this matter soon.
