Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Two individuals, who were patients of a regional healthcare provider, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the provider’s website used tracking software to intercept and share users’ personally identifiable health information with a third-party technology company. This software, known as Meta Pixel, collected data such as IP addresses, device identifiers, and details about users’ interactions with the website, transmitting this information to the technology company, which then used it for commercial purposes, including targeted advertising. The healthcare provider also received data analysis from the technology company and was paid for allowing access to this information. The plaintiffs claimed they did not consent to this sharing of their health information.After the claims against the technology company were transferred to another district, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed several amended complaints against the healthcare provider. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that the allegations did not sufficiently specify what personal health information was actually shared and that further amendment would be futile. When the plaintiffs sought reconsideration and submitted a proposed third amended complaint, the District Court denied the motion, citing undue delay because the plaintiffs could have included the new details earlier and had been clearly informed of the deficiencies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed both orders of the District Court. The Third Circuit held that, although plaintiffs had Article III standing, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice or in denying the motion for reconsideration. The appellate court concluded that plaintiffs had sufficient notice of the complaint’s deficiencies after oral argument and did not act promptly to address them, justifying denial of further amendment. View "Santoro v. Tower Health" on Justia Law

Four individuals who were or are patients of a health care system brought a proposed class action against the system, alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). They claimed the health care provider installed web tracking technologies, specifically Meta Pixel and Google Analytics, on its various websites, including a public health risk assessment (HRA) site and a password-protected patient portal. According to the plaintiffs, these tools tracked users’ activities, collected their data—including personally identifiable information, health-related communications, and protected health information—and transmitted it to Meta and Google, who then used the data for advertising purposes.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its entirety. The court found that the proposed subclasses—patients who logged into the patient portal and those who submitted HRA forms—were not ascertainable, that individual issues predominated over common ones, and that a class action was not the superior or manageable method. It reasoned that determining whether the tracking technologies’ transmissions constituted “contents” under CIPA or “medical information” under CMIA would require individualized inquiries into each user’s data. The court also concluded plaintiffs had abandoned their CIPA claim under section 632.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appellate court held that the HRA form subclass and the CIPA claim for the patient portal subclass met the requirements for class certification, as key liability questions could be resolved with common proof. However, it affirmed the denial of class certification for the CMIA claim for the patient portal subclass and agreed that plaintiffs forfeited their CIPA section 632 claim. The court found class action treatment was superior and manageable for the certified subclasses. View "Doe v. Adventist Health System/West" on Justia Law

Buyers of over-the-counter nasal decongestants containing oral phenylephrine brought numerous class actions against drug manufacturers and retailers, alleging that for years these companies sold and advertised decongestant products they knew to be ineffective. The plaintiffs claimed that scientific studies, particularly since 2016, had shown oral phenylephrine to be no better than a placebo at relieving congestion, yet the companies continued to market their products as effective decongestants and complied with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements. The FDA, despite mounting evidence, did not remove oral phenylephrine’s designation as an effective decongestant under its regulations.The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated nearly one hundred class actions and transferred them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting New York statutory and common-law claims as well as a federal RICO claim. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) expressly preempted the state law claims because the drugs’ labels complied with FDA requirements, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the RICO claim. The court also dismissed a Lanham Act claim brought by one pharmacy plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the FDCA expressly preempts most of the state law claims because the federal regime requires manufacturers to follow the FDA-approved labeling, but it vacated the dismissal for claims regarding “Maximum Strength” labeling and brand-name drugs approved via the New Drug Application process, remanding those for further proceedings. The court affirmed dismissal of the RICO claim, adopting the indirect purchaser rule, and upheld denial of the pharmacy’s motion for reconsideration regarding its Lanham Act claim. View "Yousefzadeh v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc." on Justia Law

Several third-party payors who covered prescriptions for Avandia, a diabetes medication manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline LLC, brought a putative class action alleging that the company misrepresented Avandia’s cardiovascular risks and benefits. They claimed these misrepresentations led health care providers to prescribe Avandia more frequently than less expensive alternatives, causing the payors to reimburse for prescriptions that otherwise would not have been issued. The plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of entities that paid for Avandia prescriptions during a specified period.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania previously reviewed this case. It denied GlaxoSmithKline’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim, and the Third Circuit affirmed that denial. Later, the District Court granted summary judgment to GlaxoSmithKline on certain claims, but the Third Circuit reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. Most recently, the District Court granted class certification, finding the class ascertainable and concluding that common issues would predominate regarding causation. It relied on evidence of a common scheme to deceive and statistical analyses showing marketing campaigns increased prescriptions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s class certification. The Third Circuit held that while the class is ascertainable, the record does not yet demonstrate that common questions predominate on causation. The court clarified that plaintiffs in pharmaceutical fraud RICO class actions may use statistical evidence to prove causation, but such evidence must establish causation, not merely correlation. Because the plaintiffs’ statistical evidence failed to satisfy this standard, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s class certification and remanded for further fact-finding on predominance under the clarified standard. View "In re Avandia Marketing" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are minor patients who had been receiving gender-affirming medical care at the TRUE Center for Gender Diversity, a specialized department at a major pediatric hospital serving the Rocky Mountain Region. Following a December 2025 declaration by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services stating that medical gender-affirming care for minors was unsafe and could result in exclusion from federal health care payment programs, the hospital suspended such care for transgender patients under eighteen. The hospital continued to provide hormone therapy and puberty blockers to cisgender youth for other medical reasons. The plaintiffs, representing a class of similarly situated individuals, experienced immediate and significant emotional and physical harm as a result.The plaintiffs filed a class action in the District Court for the City and County of Denver seeking a preliminary injunction under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) to require the hospital to resume medically necessary gender-affirming care. The trial court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, faced irreparable harm, and lacked an adequate remedy at law, but denied the injunction. The court reasoned that granting the injunction was contrary to the public interest, the balance of equities favored the hospital, and the injunction was not sufficiently specific to preserve the status quo.The Supreme Court of Colorado, en banc, reviewed the trial court's denial for abuse of discretion. It concluded that the trial court misapplied the legal standards governing preliminary injunctions in discrimination cases, particularly regarding the public interest and balance of equities. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs satisfied all six required factors, including a reasonable probability of success on their CADA claim, and that the injunction would preserve the pre-suspension status quo. The trial court’s order was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to grant the preliminary injunction. View "Boe v. Children's Hosp. Colo." on Justia Law

An educational technology company was contracted by a county office of education to provide software and technology services to school districts, which involved collecting and storing various types of student data, including medical information. In 2022, the company experienced a data breach that resulted in unauthorized access to student medical records, including those of a minor plaintiff. The minor, through a guardian, filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of both the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) and the Customer Records Act (CRA), claiming the company was negligent in protecting confidential medical information and failed to provide timely disclosure of the breach.The Superior Court of Ventura County granted the company’s demurrer and dismissed the case, concluding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under either statute, as the company was not a covered entity under the CMIA or CRA and the plaintiff was not a “customer” under the CRA. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reversed, finding that the company fell within the scope of both statutes and that the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to support both claims. The appellate court also determined that the trial court erred by denying leave to amend the complaint.The Supreme Court of California reversed the appellate decision. The Court held that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege the company was a “provider of health care” under the CMIA, nor that he was the company’s “customer” under the CRA, so no claim was stated under either statute. However, the Court clarified that under the CMIA, a breach of confidentiality occurs when medical information is exposed to a significant risk of unauthorized access or use, and actual viewing by an unauthorized party is not required. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc." on Justia Law

Three individuals suffering from opioid use disorder (OUD) alleged that while incarcerated in facilities where a private medical contractor provided care, they were denied medically accepted screening and treatment for their condition. They claimed that the medical contractor excluded opioid dependence screening and treatment from its otherwise comprehensive services, forcing affected individuals to undergo withdrawal, even when arriving with a valid prescription for medication-assisted treatment. The plaintiffs asserted that these policies were motivated by cost-saving considerations and persisted even after the contractor was aware of the prevailing medical standards and associated constitutional risks.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia reviewed the case, which was filed as a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs sought to certify two classes: one requesting injunctive relief to require the contractor to provide proper screening and treatment, and another seeking damages for past deprivation of such care. The district court certified both classes after narrowing their definitions to ensure ascertainability and found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were met. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the defendant, challenged the certification, particularly arguing against the validity, typicality, and commonality of the classes, as well as the predominance and superiority requirements for the damages class.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine, in the first instance, whether the named plaintiffs had standing to represent the class seeking injunctive relief, given that standing was first raised on appeal and required fact-specific findings. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of the damages class, finding no abuse of discretion in its conclusions regarding ascertainability, the Rule 23(a) requirements, predominance, and superiority. View "Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

Matthew and Jamie Skipper obtained health insurance from CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc. through the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange. After experiencing infertility, they underwent in-vitro fertilization (IVF), which included freezing embryos. When they later sought coverage for the medically necessary procedure of embryo thawing as part of a subsequent IVF cycle, CareFirst denied coverage, citing a policy exclusion. The Skippers paid for the thawing themselves and later sought reimbursement. CareFirst denied their appeal as untimely. The Skippers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration and, while that was pending, brought a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Shortly after the federal suit was filed, CareFirst reversed its denial and paid the claim. The federal court then dismissed the Skippers’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction due to the amount-in-controversy requirement. The Skippers promptly refiled their class action in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.CareFirst moved to dismiss in the Circuit Court, arguing the case was moot because it had paid the Skippers’ claim and that the policy did not cover embryo thawing. The Circuit Court granted the motion based on mootness. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding that the payment did not moot the class claims and that the complaint adequately stated a claim.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment. The Court held that when a putative class action is first filed in another court and the defendant tenders individual relief to the named representative before dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, a substantially similar complaint promptly refiled in state court is not moot until the representative has a reasonable opportunity to seek class certification. Additionally, the Court held that the relevant policy exclusion does not authorize CareFirst to deny coverage for medically necessary expenses arising from IVF procedures, including embryo thawing, and that Maryland law requires such coverage. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Carefirst Bluechoice v. Skipper" on Justia Law

A class of inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary alleged that the prison’s medical care was constitutionally inadequate and that the facility failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The lawsuit began in 2015, and evidence was introduced at trial in 2018. In 2021, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued a lengthy opinion finding systemic Eighth Amendment violations and ADA/RA noncompliance. While prison officials began making improvements ahead of a scheduled remedial trial, the district court later issued a Remedial Opinion and Order, prescribing detailed institutional changes and appointing special masters to oversee compliance.The district court’s Remedial Order required the state to bear the costs of three special masters, directed broad institutional reforms, and did not expressly adhere to the limitations imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, retaining jurisdiction only for compliance procedures. After entry of judgment, the defendants appealed. During the appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the Remedial Order. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, subsequently reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction and the validity of the district court’s orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or, alternatively, § 1292(a)(1). The Fifth Circuit found that the district court’s Remedial Order violated the PLRA by failing to apply the statutory needs-narrowness-intrusiveness standard, improperly appointing multiple special masters, and requiring the state to pay their fees. The Fifth Circuit also concluded that the district court erred by disregarding ongoing improvements to prison medical care and by misapplying the standards for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA/RA. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Parker v. Hooper" on Justia Law

An employee of the Falmouth Public Schools in Maine, enrolled in a health insurance plan administered by Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc., challenged the plan’s exclusion of coverage for weight-loss medications. After being diagnosed with obesity and prescribed FDA-approved weight-loss drugs, the employee’s requests for coverage were repeatedly denied. Her medical providers appealed to Anthem, supporting the necessity of the medication, but Anthem maintained its denial, citing the plan’s explicit exclusion of weight-loss medications regardless of obesity diagnosis.The employee, on behalf of herself and a proposed class, sued Anthem’s parent company, Elevance Health, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. She alleged that the exclusion constituted disability discrimination under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which incorporates the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Elevance moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to plausibly allege disability discrimination. The district court granted the motion, reasoning that the exclusion applied to all enrollees, regardless of disability status, and did not target disabled individuals for discriminatory treatment. The court found the allegations of discrimination to be conclusory and insufficient to support claims of intentional, proxy, or disparate impact discrimination.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the exclusion of weight-loss medication coverage constituted discrimination under Section 1557. The court concluded that the exclusion was facially neutral, did not serve as a proxy for disability discrimination, and did not result in a lack of meaningful access to plan benefits for disabled individuals. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Holland v. Elevance Health, Inc." on Justia Law