I am no attorney but I have always worked under the impression that law enforcement needs PROBABLE CAUSE to “go after” the alleged guilty party. In this article there is the words “alleges” and “likely” often used to justify the DOJ’s actions. Walgreens has some 8500 store, which would suggest that they employ over 20,000 pharmacists. In this article it is stated that FOUR WALGREEN PHARMACISTS came forward as whistleblowers. In these sorts of lawsuits, if the DOJ prevail, the whistleblowers get to share with what the DOJ gets from Walgreens and CVS, and they can share 15%-25% of what the government gets.
With 20,000+ pharmacist working for Walgreens, who believes that there would be at least FOUR PHARMACISTS who are opiophobic – you know those who are “not comfortable” filling any opioid or other controlled substances? With each of those whistleblowers focused on getting tens of millions if the DOJ wins this case.
Really no concern about all the pts that have a valid need for controlled meds, no regard for all the Walgreen stockholders that will lose money as the stock prices fall and the number of employees that will become unemployed as Walgreens closes the 1200+ stores that they are planning on closing. Below I asked perplexity a question and according to its answer, this action by our DOJ is more an EXTORTION than Walgreens violating our CSA, and a CASH GRAB by our DOJ- confiscating profits from a corporation for selling a legal product.
I asked www.perplexity.ai: legally is probably cause and allegation the same?
Probable cause and allegation are not legally the same. Probable cause is a higher standard that requires more evidence than a mere allegation.
Probable cause is a legal standard that requires sufficient evidence to warrant a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed[1][4]. It is based on the totality of circumstances and involves an assessment of probabilities[3]. Probable cause is necessary for police to obtain a warrant, make an arrest, or conduct a search[4][6].
An allegation, on the other hand, is simply an accusation or claim made without proof. While an allegation can trigger an investigation, it alone is typically not enough to establish probable cause[1]. Law enforcement must gather additional evidence to meet the probable cause threshold before formal charges can be brought[1][5].
The difference between the two concepts is significant in legal proceedings:
1. Investigations: An allegation may initiate an investigation, but probable cause is required to take more serious legal actions[1].
2. Arrests and searches: Probable cause is necessary for police to make an arrest or obtain a search warrant, whereas an allegation alone is insufficient[4][6].
3. Formal charges: Prosecutors typically require probable cause, not just an allegation, to bring formal charges against an individual[1].
4. Legal standard: Probable cause is a fluid concept that depends on the assessment of multiple factors, while an allegation is a straightforward claim[3][6].
In summary, while an allegation can be the starting point of a legal process, probable cause represents a higher evidentiary standard that is crucial for advancing criminal proceedings and protecting individuals’ rights against unreasonable searches and seizures[4][6].
Citations:
[1] https://www.pagepate.com/question/how-much-money-can-a-whistleblower-make/
[2] https://federal-lawyer.com/whistleblower-lawyers/average-settlement/
[3] https://www.phillipsandcohen.com/whistleblower-rewards/
[4] https://www.wblteam.com/average-whistleblower-settlement.html
[5] https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2024/06/federal-whistleblowers-are-entitled-damages-missed-future-pay-court-rules/397638/
[6] https://www.whistleblower.gov/overview/applyforanaward
[7] https://www.laborlawpc.com/blog/demystifying-whistleblower-retaliation-settlements-a-look-at-averages-and-factors/
[8] https://pricebenowitz.com/whistleblower-lawyer/rewards/calculations/
DOJ hits Walgreens with lawsuit for filling ‘unlawful’ opioid prescriptions
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5093368-doj-walgreens-opioid-prescriptions-lawsuit/
The Department of Justice (DOJ) hit drugstore chain Walgreens with a lawsuit this week for filling “unlawful” opioid prescriptions that had no “legitimate” medical purpose for over a decade.
The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Thursday, alleges that Walgreens’ pharmacists filled millions of prescriptions despite “red flags” indicating that they were likely to be unlawful and that it pressured its pharmacists to fill prescriptions while not taking the necessary time to “confirm their validity.”
“Walgreens allegedly ignored substantial evidence from multiple sources that its stores were dispensing unlawful prescriptions, including from its own pharmacists and internal data,” the DOJ said in a Friday press release.
“These practices allowed millions of opioid pills and other controlled substances to flow illegally out of Walgreens stores,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton added in a statement.
The government alleged the company violated the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by dispensing millions of unlawful prescriptions. The lawsuit alleges that Walgreens, which has over 8,000 pharmacies across the country, also breached the False Claims Act (FCA) by seeking reimbursement for many of the prescriptions from a variety of federal healthcare programs.
“These laws are critically important in protecting our communities from the dangers of the opioid epidemic,” said acting U.S. Attorney Morris Pasqual for the Northern District of Illinois. “Our office will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure that opioids are properly dispensed and that taxpayer funds are only spent on legitimate pharmacy claims.”
The DOJ said that four different whistleblowers, who used to work at Walgreens, filed whistleblower actions. Walgreens said it will stand behind its pharmacists and asked the court to shield the drugstore corporation from DOJ attempts to enforce “arbitrary rules.”
“We are asking the court to clarify the responsibilities of pharmacies and pharmacists and to protect against the government’s attempt to enforce arbitrary ‘rules’ that do not appear in any law or regulation and never went through any official rulemaking process,” Wallgreens said on Friday.
“We will not stand by and allow the government to put our pharmacists in a no-win situation, trying to comply with ‘rules’ that simply do not exist,” the company said, adding it looks forward to defending the “professionalism and integrity of our pharmacists.”
The DOJ filed a similar lawsuit last month, that time against CVS Health, accusing the retail behemoth of aiding the opioid crisis by knowingly filling illegal prescriptions in an effort to “prize profits over patient safety.”
Filed under: General Problems
Legal attack on real criminals ended with Enron in 2001, under the Republican Bush Administration. From that point on, anything goes to convict, even lawbreaking. The summary of Sidney Powell’s book Licensed to Lie starts here https://doctorsofcourage.org/licensed-to-lie-alex-s-forward/ and continues on several posts following. Three US Attorneys have now worked from attacking doctors to President’s cabinets or above: Loretta Lynch, Kamala Harris, and now, Pam Bondi. Conviction, even of the innocent, paves the way for promotions. These people need to be held accountable and be responsible for the damage done to the innocent they attacked. That will happen when we get the CSA repealed.
They do little to disguise the pure disdain that they view opioid medications with, as they repeatedly strongly and overtly infer that patient safety being wildly disregarded even when several of the supposed violations were common practices of the majority of pharmacies (that I’m aware of anyway) at one point in time. It was more or less understood that short a prescription being written for something that isn’t typically seen or is known by pharmacists to be a clear danger to the specific patient, then the prescribing doctor knew the patient better than the pharmacy did. Or so I understood it to be. Correct me if I’m wrong, by all means. It wasn’t until the government stepped in and reprimanded pharmacists for not playing judge, jury, and executioner that the practice of scrutinizing EVERY controlled substance prescription became the rule of expectation, not the exception. This is precisely why the DOJ should refrain from attempting to practice medicine or from hiring tunnel visioned “experts” to guide them through their prosecutions, as it disturbingly appears to indicate intent on their behalf to eradicate the practice of prescribing and/or filling prescriptions for opioid pain medications being as they consistently portray them as being “dangerous” to “patient safety”. As if there is no legitimate use for opioid pain medications and anyone who is involved with getting them into the hands of patients is, by default, committing some degree of wrongdoing. It’s my belief that the only reason they stop short of saying as much is due to the fact that it’s become a cash cow for them and because they know on some level their portrayal of opioid pain medications is not accurate. The latter does not stop them from pushing the idea, because it facilitates the former. But that’s just my 2 cents on it.
Which laws related to the CSA were allegedly broken, specifically? Because it’s quite likely that if there are, in fact, specific laws that were allegedly violated by Walgreens, they may not have existed in their current form during the time period the DOJ is citing. At least, not the entire time frame referenced. Such as quantity limits or early fills, both of which were cited (amongst others) in the article I read. And where is the culpability of insurers who approved payment for quantities that were allegedly “too high” or for early fills that were typically honored when it came to weekends or holidays preventing the patient from picking up medications on the day they were due? To my knowledge, there are no provisions for retroactive prosecution in regards to violating laws that had not yet even been written when the alleged criminal acts supposedly occurred. So its crucial to understand all of the accusations levied at Walgreens, when the DOJ accuses them of having violated the law, what laws they’re explicitly stating were violated, and when those laws came into effect. Particularly, if they were purportedly new laws enacted or amendments to old laws that already existed. I smell something rotten here, but what’s new, I suppose.