Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel recently filed an application seeking leave to appeal an order preventing her from proceeding with an investigation of Eli Lilly and Company’s insulin pricing practices.
Lilly has used two past decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) to assert the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) is inapplicable to its sale of insulin.
The attorney general is asking the Supreme Court to reverse those decisions because they are not supported by a plain reading of the law.
In January 2022, Nessel launched an investigation into Eli Lilly — one of the nation’s three largest drug-manufacturing companies producing insulin.
The action sought to use the MCPA to investigate various aspects of Lilly’s pricing practices related to life-saving medications used by diabetics.Nessel also filed a companion Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, asking the court to declare that MCL 445.904(1)(a) does not prohibit an investigation into Eli Lilly’s insulin pricing. But Lilly used the two prior decisions to obtain an order stating that the consumer protection act does not apply to its insulin sales, thus halting the investigation.
“The Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co. and Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc. decisions have been used to frustrate consumer protection efforts for far too long,” Nessel said. “It is unconscionable for Michigan residents to have to choose between life-saving medicine and food or rent. My Consumer Protection Team stands ready to hold drug companies accountable for their unjustifiable prices, but we can only do so if we are not being hindered by court decisions that misapply the text of a law having a purpose obvious from its name.”
Last July, Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Wanda M. Stokes granted Lilly’s motion for summary disposition, holding that the Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co. and?Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc. decisions preclude application of the MCPA to Lilly’s sale of insulin medications because the general transaction of selling insulin is authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.
A claim of appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals (COA) along with a bypass application to the MSC.?The MSC denied the bypass application but asked the COA to expedite the appeal. The COA upheld the lower court’s decision, leading to last week’s filing.
Smith (1999) and Liss (2007) interpret an exemption contained in Section 445.904(1)(a) of the MCPA as applying whenever the general transaction is specifically authorized by law, regardless of whether the specific misconduct alleged is prohibited. Under this interpretation, members of any industry that is generally regulated are often deemed exempt from the MCPA, thereby providing what is effectively a “free pass” for misconduct under the MCPA, regardless of how egregious the misconduct.
The attorney general’s appeal is not based on the merits of whether Eli Lilly has violated the MCPA, but rather on the attorney general’s authority to investigate possible MCPA violations under MCL 445.907 when Eli Lilly is generally authorized to sell insulin medications by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but is bound by no FDA regulations regarding the pricing of those medications.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
