Walgreens Lawsuit

[ls317]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pwalgreens08mar08,0,7108212.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines


For years, Janey Karp has battled depression and anxiety with the help of prescription drugs. Though millions of Americans do the same, Karp admits she is intensely private and can't help but feel stigmatized for needing medication to feel normal.

So when the 53-year-old Palm Beach resident read the Walgreens printout attached to her prescription last week for the sleep aid Ambien, she couldn't believe her eyes. Typed in a field reserved for patient information and dated March 17, 2005, was "CrAzY!!" In another field, dated Sept. 30, 2004, it read: "She's really a psycho!!! Do not say her name too loud, never mention her meds by names & try to talk to her when ... " The information continued onto another page but was not attached.

[Warpy]

1. Moralists always deny the existence of mental illness

and have absolutely no clue that chemical unbalance in the brain can be devastating to one's life. In fact, moralists tend to deny any illness that isn't manifested by lost limbs.

The very last place any moralist needs to work is health care. I wish the industry did a better job of weeding them out and keeping them far, far away from patients than it does.

[Lars39]

2. HIPPA has to be at issue here.

I hope she wins her case.

[benburch]

4. How so?

The information was disclosed to nobody but her. And the warnings seem to involve making sure that HIPPA is followed to the letter.

[Lars39]

8. This part:

"...At the Walgreens pharmacies Karp patronized in Connecticut, she said that on more than one occasion she asked store employees to be discreet when discussing her medications. Many times, she said, employees would loudly call Karp's name and make reference to her medications..."

[benburch]

15. She'd need to prove that part.

And I don't think she can.

Moreover, that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with these instructions which, again, seemed aimed at ensuring compliance with HIPPA.

[Lars39]

18. Calling someone a psycho or crazy is complying with HIPPA?

[benburch]

22. If it is internal communication, YES.

Have you ever had an actually crazy person present themselves at a store you were clerk at? This was a warning to other employees.

[Lars39]

24. You're reaching. If she was dangerous, the word "dangerous"

would be the professional way to state it. Her doc said she wasn't dangerous, though.

[benburch]

26. I never said "dangerous". You are putting words into my mouth.

And I'd thank you to stop.

[benburch]

3. She has NO grounds.

A Business has to be able to have information about problem customers so that they can know to treat such people with kid gloves.

The only regrettable thing was that they erred in including the document.

I think they owe her an apology for that, but NOTHING else.

[Clark2008]

6. Ben, once again, you and I agree.

See my post below.

These people could have been malicious, but, more than likely, I'm thinking they probably were trying to warn future staff members.

[pitohui]

7. sadly i think you're right

i don't think she decided to be a neurotic, she clearly has an illness and maybe a social phobia to boot, but it sounds like she had a history at the store and someone on staff went overboard w. the warning label to make it emphatic that you had to walk on egg shells w. her

they do owe an apology, that is just rude

whether a jury would award her anything more than a token, well, seems doubtful

[stepnw1f]

10. I Have to agree with You

I really feel bad for her, but then again, she might have given employees problems in the past. Who knows...

[phylny]

19. I work with the public and have worked in healthcare, and this is

very, very wrong.

A business can very easily have information about a patient and it can be stated as so:

"Mrs. Smith has requested that all information regarding her medication be kept private. Under NO circumstances should any personnel discuss the type of medication, dosage, or side effects unless it is done quietly, discreetly and privately in her presence.

"Mrs. Smith has lodged complaints about our service X number of times in the past, and we must all do our best to help this customer with any challenges that she has."

See? It ain't hard.

People in the medical profession blurt out things and don't even think twice about it. I had called a doctor's office once and AS THE LADY WAS PICKING UP THE PHONE I heard her yelling to someone else, "...(name of child of phylny" has to have the x-ray of her hip read by the doctor." It was purely circumstance that I was calling (about the x-ray) and I said, "it's a good thing I'm phylny since you were just yelling down the hall about my daughter."

Nervous laughter ensued.

Off topic, it reminds me of when people ask for my social security number and then start reading it back as I say it, or when they repeat my credit card number at a take-out restaurant on the phone. HELLO??? Discretion and customer service are a good idea in all endeavors.

[benburch]

28. No doubt they could have couched it in nicer language.

But it was clearly never intended for her consumption, and provides no grounds for a suit.

[SPKrazy]

37. They Fucked Up

They shouldn't slander her in their communications

they could have used more professional language

these are pharmacists and are considered professionals

she has a damned good case

[Clark2008]

5. Playing devil's advocate for one moment...

I wonder if she had a history of raving to the staff - not because of her depression, but because she is, well, cranky. There are people like that out there. Curmudgeonly people who are angry with the help, so to speak. It happens.
Granted, the staff shouldn't have written it in the place where she could see it, but it might have been a warning to the other staff for when she comes in.

That said, the love of my life is bi-polar. I understand mental illness and its chemical imbalances. I just thought that there possibly is a real and good reason why someone might put that on her information. Maybe I'm too optimistic about people.

[pitohui]

9. it says she had scolded the staff in the past

my reading of the article is that she did indeed have a history of getting on the staff for talking too loudly abt her prescriptions, i strongly suspect what you describe to be exactly what happened

a sad thing, an embarrassing thing, but actionable? probably not

[Poppyseedman]

12. Cranky ??? This is beyond cranky.

Typed in a field reserved for patient information and dated March 17, 2005, was "CrAzY!!" In another field, dated Sept. 30, 2004, it read: "She's really a psycho!!! Do not say her name too loud, never mention her meds by names & try to talk to her when ...

I don't think the Walgreen's employees would put such remarks if they were not needed, especially, the last comment seems to be the most explicit.

Part of being a pharmacist is dealing with all sorts of people: ill, old, mothers with sick kids. I would think they would have been used to dealing with your run of the mill cranky person.

It's unfortunate she saw their comments, but the store has an obligation to let the people dealing with her to know what type of customer she is.

Everybody who has ever worked in retail knows what regular customers are the problem ones. I spent a year working for a large retailer and within a very short time, I knew to call the manager as the "problem" customer started shopping to start coming over because Mr. or Mrs. XXXXXXX had arrived.

[Clark2008]

29. We agree. I was being more "delicate" in my post

but, yes, I have worked retail, semi-retail and, now, in a professional computer learning center. I know the more-than-cranky people. ;)

[Sanity Claws]

11. This is awful

Some folks in this thread mentioned that it's not actionable, that's it's just instructions to staff. Bullshit. Instruction to staff would simply say do this or not do that. Referring to her as Psycho and CrAzy is unforgivable. It's libelous and outrageous.

[Poppyseedman]

14. I think they were referring to being actionable under HIPPA

She can sue them with good reason for almost anything. Libel might be hard to prove since it was not malicious intent.

"United States law dictates that for something to be considered libel it must be proven that the one making the libelous charges did so with malicious intent and with full knowledge that the statements were false. Furthermore personal opinion is protected as a First Amendment right."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-slander-and-libel.htm


Defamation of character is more likely

[Sanity Claws]

16. Libel is a type of defamation

The article you quoted is correct insofar as you are talking about a public person. This is just your ordinary woman picking up a prescription and definitely wanted to stay out of the public eye.
Defamation of character is the more general name given to the torts of libel and slander.

[benburch]

17. It can be NEITHER Libel nor Defamation.

Because it was not published. It was an internal work document given to the patient herself, not any third party.

Any defamation she has suffered has been by her own hand in contacting the press on this matter.

[Sanity Claws]

20. It was published from one employee to another employee

You're taking the position that Walgreen as a whole should be considered one entity. I think one could argue otherwise. Further, there was no business reason for writing in this way.

[benburch]

25. Legally, it is a single entity.

All of their stores are corporate-owned.

Business reason? Yes, if it communicated the sort of person they were dealing with, then it was appropriate.

I've coded a customer's files to say "This guy is a total jerk and wants everything for nothing" in the past, and I have no regrets about this.

[Sanity Claws]

32. We just don't agree

I've had to deal with difficult clients but would never put anything in the file that called them psycho or anything like that. I've requested someone I worked with to change an entry in a file because of the way he characterized the client.
Regardless of whether or not the comments are actionable, it's just not prudent or good business to put such things in writing. These comments make Wahlgreen's look bad.
I wouldn't be surprised if Wahlgreen's requires its pharmacists and their assistants to attend training in the near future in order to avoid further instances of this.

[Rich Hunt]

33. excuse me, but that is legally libel

Whether it was private or not does not matter. If it is a filed document shared between individuals, it's libel.

There's no getting around that.

Whether it's 'in-house' or not makes no difference, legally.


Walgreen's took it seriously enough to 'investigate' - that is a validation that this is actionable and a legal problem.

[Clark2008]

41. Not in Florida.

It's not called the Sunshine Law for nothing.

Seriously. Look up why Florida USED to be the most liberal state when it came to the rights of free speech.

Unless they've changed it when Dale Earnhardt died, then it's not. Believe me.

[Clark2008]

38. It's not libelous. Believe me.

I could call you crazy. You could sue. Waste money. Waste our time. And it will be dismissed.

Was it stupid? Yes.
Was it wrong? Yes.
Is is actionable? No.

[Missy M]

13. She doesn't seem to mind having her name in print now for...

all to see. It seems the staff was responding to her chastising them and used a few words they shouldn't have but otherwise they were just giving instructions to other workers.

[sproutster]

21. I find it sad that ya'll think it's ok for a pharmacy to label customers..

psycho and crazy. It's unprofessional and it leads to what you all are stressing in this thread - She *must* be a head case coz they wrote it.

That's so lovely... well gosh, they didn't PUBLISH it, they only snickered and called her names behind her back.

Please, don't discuss my problems or medications.

That psycho enough for ya? Oh would I get angry if they then called it over the radio? Oh probably a bit.

Yep definately psycho behavior. :) My faith in humankind is renewed. Nothin but consumers - I prefer to be a customer.

[sproutster]

23. And just for the record - WHAT IF IT WAS AZT??!!

[benburch]

27. What if it were? nt

[sproutster]

30. What part of medical privacy do you not understand? Mrs. X please come get

Your AZT.

[benburch]

35. But we don't know that they did this.

We just have her admittedly disordered memory of this.

What if it went down like this? "Mrs. Nuthatcher, will you step over to the consultation window? OK, Mrs. Nuthatcher, we cannot approve your AZT prescription because your insurance says it is for a pre-existing condition." All said in low conversational tones that nobody could overhear.

But, Mrs. Nuthatcher is so neurotic that even that conversation is as though they had been using a bullhorn, and she is sure that the girl stocking holiday paper four isles over had heard it, and she GOES OFF and starts screaming at the pharmacist and demanding to speak to the manager and yelling at the other customers "Don't take your Prescriptions Here! They tell EVERYBODY your business!!!"

What then?

[sproutster]

40. Then you DISCUSS IT PRIVATELY with your employees

Anything other is reprehensible.

I apparently worked in service before it was cool to be derogatory to your customers.

[Beaverhausen]

31. Why are you so sure this woman is wrong?

She said that they said her name and discussed her medications loudly enough so that other customers could hear. That is a violation.

And the language used on the "patient information" clearly shows unprofessionalism among those working at the pharmacy.

My boyfriend is a nurse and has to deal with HIPPA rules all the time.

[benburch]

44. Perhaps because I have dealt with really neurotic and wigged out clients.

I know exactly the sort of out of control person you sometimes need to deal with, and how they invent a reason to go off on you even if you have given them none.

Now, maybe she isn't that, but I would bet that she is.

[sproutster]

46. Gee so have I

Yet never once did I want to post a note to everyone that they are crazy and a psycho. This includes a gentleman that decided I was the spawn of satan and needed to die. I called the cops and said I figured he needed some help.

[Beaverhausen]

47. Nothing excuses what the pharmacists wrote

I repeat, the language used on these "patient remarks" shows the immaturity and unprofessionalism of the people writing them, so it seems pretty easy to believe that they would also be unprofessional in their face to face dealings with their customers.

And as the article states, what other comments are these people making - for instance for customers buying things like viagra? They need sensitivity training, at the very least.

[Akoto]

34. As someone medicated for mental issues ...

I do not find this acceptable. Call me biased, say it's not actionable, but it's still not okay. One of the reasons so many people don't seek out help for their psychological issues (and there are a LOT of those people) is labeling. There's a whole catalogue of mental issues one can have, and the vast majority of them wouldn't qualify you as 'crazy' or 'psycho'. It's offensive and hurtful.

[benburch]

39. And I too am on psychiatric medications.

And don't have a problem with this case.

[Akoto]

42. Just to make sure I was clear ...

I don't have a problem with the woman's case. I was referring to her being labeled as crazy in official documents. :)

[SPKrazy]

43. It Is Wrong, and It Is ACTIONABLE!

and she will get a sizeable settlement for their "mistake"

unprofessional use of such terms in written communications is at best inappropriate, and more likely malicious, stigmatizing, and mean.

I'm guessing she has a case under slander, Americans with Disabilities, and possibly even HIPPA, although, that may be a stretch to include HIPPA.

The thing is that this information got printed on the med instruction sheet.

If it somehow got printed on someone else's instruction sheet too, well, that would be a bigger deal.

[SPKrazy]

36. Pharmacists I Know Have Never Seemed Too Sensitive

about mental illness

maybe because to stand around and count pills all day, one has to be a little OCD to start with.

[geniph]

45. It's insensitive and unquestionably rude, BUT

in my admittedly personal opinion, it is not actionable. In order to receive a judgement for libel, one must prove that one was harmed by the written material in question. Now, calling her a psycho in her files is unforgivably unprofessional and unkind, but in what way would it have caused her harm?

I've stood in enough lines in pharmacies to see how whacko some people get. I don't blame the pharmacy for trying to put a warning to staff in her file, but it would have been nice if they'd framed it in rather more professional terms. Still, I don't see where a lawsuit for financial damages is justifiable.