TALES FROM THE FRONT

We were retained by a medical device supply company, whom I shall refer to as “Scranton Medical Supply”, or “SMS”, who sells and delivers medical supplies, such as crutches, walkers, and those fancy machines that provide rhythmic compression to the legs, to help prevent blood clots, or “deep-vein thrombosis” also known as “DVT”.

The patient, whom I shall refer to as “Ryan Howard”, had a surgery, and required several medical devices, including that DVT machine, as well as a hospital bed to be delivered to his home. Unfortunately, his insurance coverage was less than ideal, as his employer, whom I shall refer to as “Dunder Mifflen” has a non-existent group health insurance plan, likely due to the company budget being spent on Pretzel Day expenses. As such, Ryan had a deductible responsibility of $5000. He refused to pay, thinking that he had insurance, and not understanding what a deductible was. As such, we were retained to file suit.

As soon as we filed suit, Ryan’s lawyer, whom I shall call, “Dwight Schrute”, filed a counterclaim, and threatened to report SMS to the Gotham Attorney General, because SMS was not a properly licensed pharmacy. (I’ll let that set in).  Dwight alleged that because a physician prescribed the DVT machine to Ryan, and prescriptions are generally for medicines, and pharmacies administer medicines, therefore, SMS was a pharmacy. (Yes, this is a real story.) As ridiculous as that sounds, that’s exactly what Schrute tried to argue.

We brought a Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim, and for Summary Judgment. Bolstered by a “Financial Guarantee” signed by Ryan, which stated “I agree to be personally and fully responsible for any balances not paid for by my insurance company, including but not limited to, co-payments, deductibles, and co-insurance.” (Yep, I drafted that for SMS to use years ago), and buttressed by the fact that SMS was licensed as a durable medical supplier, I also argued in my motion papers, that there was an odd leap in logic made by Dwight, in categorizing SMS as a pharmacy. I further opined:

“The Defendant’s entire discussion of comparing Plaintiff to a pharmacy is illogical. It’s like the Defendant is trying to apply laws that deal with the regulation of petroleum oil to a bottle of olive oil, because the word “oil” appears in the definition.”

Sadly (to me), the Court’s holding did not remark on what I thought was a clever and snide comment, but (good for the client) the Court held, “Defendant has failed to make any showing to support the claim that plaintiff was required to have a pharmacy license. Plaintiff’s counsel shows that Plaintiff was licensed as a durable medical supplier, not a pharmacy, and that license was active at the time the equipment was supplied.”

Durable medical equipment may be prescribed, but logic, sadly, is still over-the-counter.