2333
Comments (116)
sorted by:
166
EJay_Scott 166 points ago +166 / -0

Any pharmacy that denies a valid prescription for any reason (outside of outright fraud) should be charged with practicing medicine without a license and shut down immediately.

This suit will never make it to court due to Walmarts deep pockets, unfortunately.

78
TJac 78 points ago +78 / -0

Make it class action.

29
CoryInTheHouse1776 29 points ago +29 / -0

Exactly. There must be millions of others going thru the same thing by now

5
anotherthing 5 points ago +5 / -0

Class actions typically only really benefit the lawyers. The pay out is typically large, but the lawyers take around a third of that, and the rest is divided up among the class. So, basically, they work one case and get paid as though they'd worked hundreds to thousands of cases but all at the same time. It also benefits the Plaintiff, since they only have to fight one case instead of dozens to thousands of cases.

3
Visvires 3 points ago +3 / -0

They also take years, even decades.

2
MegaMagaMan13 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have always viewed class action lawsuits as a way to punish offending organizations, rather than a windfall for plantiffs. Most class action suits don't pay out enough individually for a tank of gas (especially today).

But the repercussions for the organization being sued is immense. Bad publicity, massive overall payment, and new corporate policies to avoid this ever happening again.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
Txiribiton 3 points ago +3 / -0

Or burn them down and paint BLM.

34
BeijingJoeHastoGo 34 points ago +34 / -0

Unlicensed practice of medicine is an administrative charge against the individual by the state licensing board. It doesn't give a patient a right to sue. However, if the same conduct by the pharmacy causes the patient to die, it would support a lawsuit for negligence against the pharmacy.

16
TexasPiper 16 points ago +16 / -0

So no standing?

16
WacoKid90 16 points ago +16 / -0

Different court/jury/process. You make the complaint to the state board of pharmDs they investigate and have their own process for violation of their rules.

10
Bendadick_Arnold 10 points ago +10 / -0

So they get to investigate themselves. Hmmmn wonder if they’ll find any wrongdoing

2
WhitePowerRanger 2 points ago +2 / -0

Walmart isn’t the pharmacy board. Like at all, not even close.

4
BlackPillBot 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yup!!! Sitting for us only, and only on the back of the bus that has no fuel because of Biden’s policies, inflation, and economy.

4
BeijingJoeHastoGo 4 points ago +4 / -0

Lol! Basically.

9
Duke442games 9 points ago +9 / -0

This happened to me in Wisconsin.

If this is in another state, this should qualify for RICO collaboration with the intent to commit.

5
magamagashii 5 points ago +5 / -0

The lawyers are based in MN and their info is in this document.

Assuming this case (or a similar case in WI) pays put then guess what?

YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION.

3
peltast 3 points ago +3 / -0

Found the Supreme Court justice.

8
Smurfection 8 points ago +9 / -1

Patients have a right to sue universally and absolutely. I don't even know what you mean by "it doesn't give a patient a right to sue"....what doesn't give a patient a right to sue? I can sue anyone at any time for any thing. The question is, what lawyer is going to take the case, is the court going to throw it out and on what basis, does the lawsuit have a chance of winning in a court of law (the answer to that is always 50-50).

1
peterstrzoked 1 point ago +1 / -0

I got sued for a billion dollars one time by a moorish national. I’m pretty sure the final judgement, in addition to the multiple billions I was ordered to pay and the transfer of all my property and possessions, had me transferring custody of my unborn grandchildren as well.

Funny thing is, I never got evicted from my house that he now owns, nor did he come to collect any of the money.

I mailed back a packet of my junk mail one time with one of the angry letters and then stopped getting them.

TLDR anyone can sue for anything (even in made up pretend courts), but that doesn’t mean it isn’ta joke

4
Smurfection 4 points ago +4 / -0

Do you know pharmacists and pharmacies have been sued for denying plan B, abortifacients, puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones and other things.

Some states allow pharmacists freedom of conscience, other states say if a pharmacist isn't willing to fill a prescription, they have to refer to a pharmacist that will. Other states do not allow pharmacists to refuse to fulfill prescriptions and some states have no law or ruling on the books. However, almost all these state policies are based on lawsuits that actually happened.

In my state of MN, a woman had to drive 50 miles to a different pharmacy to get a Plan B prescription filled so with the help of the ACLU, she sued both the pharmacy and the pharmacist.

1
poopypajamas 1 point ago +3 / -2

Wow. Did you go to law school!? I had NO IDEA that any lawsuit could be predicted with a coin-toss! Why even bother learning law! You made it so easy!

....

I'd tell you to read a book but it wouldn't help you

5
Seadan 5 points ago +5 / -0

The 50/50 thing he said was definitely wrong, but everything else is pretty accurate. He just apparently doesn't understand how odds work.

2
Smurfection 2 points ago +2 / -0

The correct answer is 50/50 not because of the odds but because that's what most good lawyers tell a client when they take the case.

1
WhitePowerRanger 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well if it wasn’t 50/50 or better, they probably wouldn’t take the case

1
Smurfection 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm done explaining what this idiom means to people. I already did that twice in my previous comments on this thread.

2
Smurfection 2 points ago +2 / -0

k, so when clients ask you the chances, what do you say?

3
Taylor3006 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah this is a tough one because to win a judgment, you have to show damages. With the way the medical community has been cowed into silence, showing that not filling the prescription caused the death of the patient or not filling the prescription caused their illness to be worse, is going to be a hard fight. I do not think much will come of this honestly, probably an administrative smack of the hand.

1
Whiskey2niner 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm unable to open the link, but I assume the patient was denied the medication due to the pharmacist's political ideology? As far as I know there arent any laws prohibiting the use of ivermectin when it's a valid prescription. I may be reaching here but couldnt this be a form of discrimination?

2
Smurfection 2 points ago +2 / -0

Political ideology isn't a protective group. Any and all discrimination based on political ideology is legal. What you can't discriminate on is race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, sexual preference, gender identity, U.S. Military Veteran Status and age. Those are the protected classes.

1
brother_red 1 point ago +1 / -0

depends on the State

you're right for most States

in California, political ideology is a protected class

1
Smurfection 1 point ago +1 / -0

Really? Then republicans and conservatives should be making bank given all the discrimination against them in Silicon Valley.

1
WhitePowerRanger 1 point ago +1 / -0

What’s the difference between sex orientation and sex preference?

And what’s the difference between sex, gender, and gender identity?

1
Smurfection 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sex orientation is what sex/gender a person's is prefers as a sexual partner, basically Heterosexual or homosexual in EEOC-speak but in reality, everyone knows sexual orientation means homosexuals. Sex preference is the same thing but implies that the orientation isn't genetic, immutable of ingrained so it basically means homosexual but also questioning, bisexual other groups. The phrases sex orientation and sex preference at this point are used interchangeable by the court, Amy Coney Barrett was ridiculed in the lefty press for using exclusively "sex preference" rather than "sex orientation". Some LGBQIA argue that using "sex preference" implies the preference can change and is therefore a "right wing term". It's not. but whatever.

Sex is whether or not someone is male or female. Unless a certain sex is needed for a specific task such as an actress (that's sexist now, all performers are apparently actors now) to play a mother, it's sexist to discriminate against a man or a woman based on sex. Gender is the societal "role" a human being plays, presents as and wants to be seen as...for instance, A woman can both be a female and want to be considered a woman, but she may also be transmasc, a made up category, and thus insist she be called they/them pronouns even though she is both a woman, female and presents as a woman and female. Gender identity is the gender that a person wants to be perceived as, such a man wanted to be perceived as a woman or a women wanted to be perceived as a man. Honestly the difference between gender and gender identity doesn't even make sense as this point anymore. Also, aside from biology the category "sex" is starting to be blurred into gender in terms of transgenders changing their sex on birth certificiates etc. When this silliness started, they were drawing a distinction between gender and sex that protected the science and acknowledgment of objective biological sex but now it's gotten too weird and perverted.

btw, I don't at all agree with any of the above terminology and I don't think any of these groups based on sex and gender ought to be protected.

7
Bot-not1 7 points ago +9 / -2

Correct on both counts.

3
Bot-not1 3 points ago +5 / -2

A downvote? Really? Sheesh.

16
Dcokes 16 points ago +16 / -0

FBI is asshoe

7
BostonVoter 7 points ago +7 / -0

Actually, I think that is the reason it could go to court. This is potentially very serious and seems black and white, any good lawyer would want this case. Especially not for settling... but to really get them in their wallet by having a jury trial and punitive damages

2
magamagashii 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think I saw $75K in damages is what they wanted.

That's a tough one and up to the bean counters and lawyers at Walmart.

To be honest, I think they will pay the top medical lawyers in the country whatever they want to crush this case and not settle.

They settle, or worse, lose....holy crap. The floodgates will open.

4
ikuyas 4 points ago +4 / -0

Please just don't say things you won't ever take action. File a law suit. Demonstrate that they deny your prescription. You can file a suit locally with very minimal fee < $100.

38
based_trekkie 38 points ago +38 / -0

They fucking sued pharmacy for not filling abortifacients, FUCK EM,

THEY SET THE FUCKING STANDARD!

THEY GET WHAT THEY FUCKING DESERVE!

25
WeThePeople76 25 points ago +25 / -0

I guarantee you that every one of these pharmacists denying ivermectin prescriptions are the same people demanding that other pharmacists have their licenses revoked if they refuse to fill prescriptions for abortion drugs.

1
Dennislearsysbastard 1 point ago +1 / -0

With large corporations it's built into the system now. To get it you have to be coded with a lupus or water blindness or some stupid shit like that.

17
ikuyas 17 points ago +17 / -0

Okay. Those who want ivermectin, order it from walmart, if they deny, sue them.

13
Joe_Snow 13 points ago +14 / -1

I had an ivm script sent to my local Walmart and was called & told "nobody is filling this, tell your doctor to prescribe something else"

10
CoryInTheHouse1776 10 points ago +10 / -0

Sue sue sue

4
MakeFloridaRed 4 points ago +4 / -0

Sue everyone! -The Jerky Boys

1
WVboi 1 point ago +1 / -0

I totally read that in Mort Goldman's voice.

4
ikuyas 4 points ago +4 / -0

File a lawsuit, bro. It just costs you <$100 locally. Even if it goes nowhere, you get some knowledge. Using a court system is the right that we have as an American citizen. There is nothing wrong with suing. It's called Tort law. I've taken "economics of law" course from the very privileged university in east coast which took 4 months for mainly law school students while I am PhD in economics. I learned so many things from almost knowing nothing about the law. I also found that many things people give as a legal advise are not really correct, only sort of correct. I feel like all I don't know after taking the course is the everyday court procedure lawyers would know just because they do everyday.

There are some tricks. For example, sue the individual pharmacist or something like that instead of suing the pharmacy department of that particular Walmart. I also heard that you can make any statement in the file whatever it is, true or not to smear the defendant (defendant is a Walmart, you will be a plaintiff). Those are the tricks I don't know much about because that's probably things lawyers use as a practice.

3
Smashley 3 points ago +3 / -0

We had to get ours from a compound pharmacy. I can’t fucking believe this shit!!!

3
magamagashii 3 points ago +3 / -0

Then YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION.

2
brother_red 2 points ago +2 / -0

local compounding pharmacy is where you go

12
slowjellyfish 12 points ago +12 / -0

Wow, the marine actually took the horse paste. The actual horse paste. The same one I have in my cupboard in case of emergencies.

10
Diotima 10 points ago +10 / -0

Drive to Mexico if things are desperate enough its literally OTC there.

3
Pissed_American 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's probably one thing they instructed customs to bust people. The mules that carry the fentanyl get priority.

9
QMAB 9 points ago +9 / -0

Dude, why does this legal document say "Horse paste" instead of Veterinary-Grade Oral Ivermectin?

7
Truthseeker0120 7 points ago +7 / -0

Good! I loathe Walmart. Commie mother fuckers.

6
Crappydatum 6 points ago +6 / -0

Corporate has a policy AGAINST delivering Invermectin. The precedent they're establishing is that a pharmacist can override a physician's prescription. That REALLY opens them up for lawsuits

6
Dantalian 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes! I just read that 20% - 50% of prescriptions are written for "off-label" use (sicknesses other than the one it was officially approved for), because the government "cannot tell physicians how to use those drugs in their practices." But the law, the Constitution, and other restrictions on what govt can do is out the window - they cheated to grab power & destroy the nation, and they aren't going to stop until WE STOP THEM!

6
Mungo 6 points ago +6 / -0

God speed. The right ruling here could change the whole game.

5
Smashley 5 points ago +5 / -0

Jesus Christ you would not believe the shit my wife and I had to go through to get Ivermectin!! Basically any institution that takes Medicare or Medicaid cannot and will not prescribe or fill a prescription. We got to pay cash and learned what a compound pharmacy is. This is fucking America. What the hell.

2
Pissed_American 2 points ago +2 / -0

You should teach us ignorants about compound pharmacies. I've never heard of em.

3
brother_red 3 points ago +3 / -0

compounding

rather than just count out pills, the pharmacist takes their big ol jar of powder and fills empty capsules with your exact dose size

get to a small, local compounding pharmacy, not one of the big chains

1
Pissed_American 1 point ago +1 / -0

I assume they don't do this for controlled substances.

1
brother_red 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't know either way. I don't see why not though.

0
Pissed_American 0 points ago +0 / -0

Idk it seems like them metering our pure opioids and benzos might be where alot of crime and "skimming off the top" could take place. And they regulate those to every milligram. At least in most states now.

2
WhitePowerRanger 2 points ago +2 / -0

Daily report: oops. Accidentally dropped a whole jar of powdered percocets on the floor. I swept it up and into the trash. Please believe.

2
brother_red 2 points ago +2 / -0

makes sense

5
KungPaoMcChicken 5 points ago +5 / -0

Meanwhile the opioid epidemic continues. Big pharma loves selling opioids.

4
PM_Me_Ur_Weird_Bendy 4 points ago +4 / -0

Wtf is everyone's thing against it? Even if it didn't work, it's still safe to take without any worms...

4
WVboi 4 points ago +4 / -0

The problem they have with Ivermectin is that it works better than the vaccine.

1
PepeAmericusMaximus 1 point ago +1 / -0

It ACTUALLY works, and is significantly cheaper so big pharma doesn't get their cut and their stock doesn't go to the moon as fast

4
MythArcana 4 points ago +4 / -0

Or you could just order through AllDayChemist dot com and skip all libtards in the process.

3
BlackPillBot 3 points ago +3 / -0

That, and safemeds4all were a safe bet up until around three months ago, but our government has found it necessary to allocate more employees to seizing ivermectin than all the fentanyl coming into our country.

2
EdisonHwy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Monitor

1
Illegal_left 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m curious. What does this comment mean? Is this a reliable source for it?

2
Deepthroht 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’ve used ADC before (for other things) they are legit. Idk how bad shipping is now though given the fucked up world we’re in.

1
spinometer 1 point ago +1 / -0

I used twice in the past 6 mos with no problems. about a month en route.

1
CoryInTheHouse1776 1 point ago +3 / -2

No thanks. Not getting my meds from some street shitter factory in India

5
BlackPillBot 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’ve got bad news for you fren.

4
zzyzyx 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yeah like most of the meds consumed in the US are made in India/China.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

DING DING DING!!!

0
magamagashii 0 points ago +1 / -1

You might own stuff. You can refuse the bugs. You don't have to live in a pod.

But "I refuse to take a drug from India". Whew lad, good luck with that.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

kek

4
Tenspot20 4 points ago +4 / -0

I have a feeling that all Americans will soon be getting the government distributed Mectin.

2
AnotherDeadVoter 2 points ago +2 / -0

And it will be "free" aka cost the tax payers $100 per package.

3
Pissed_American 3 points ago +3 / -0

At least it would be helping people instead of killing them

2
WhitePowerRanger 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well considered they spent the last 4 trillion dollars killing people, I don’t really care anymore.

3
Flipakademsarepedos 3 points ago +3 / -0

Boom!!! Lesgoooo. Stopping life saving treatment SMH!!!

3
magamagashii 3 points ago +3 / -0

The lawyers names and info are in the document, anyone with a similar experience should watch this case and see how it goes.

And remember pedes, if you or a loved one were denied a legal prescription for Ivermectin during the Covid-19 pandemic. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION.

Contact the law offices of Chadly & Based, Esq. for your consultation today.

Chadly & Based. We fight for you.

3
Sendnudes 3 points ago +3 / -0

Am glad it's finally happening but this lawsuit is 2 years too late.

2
TheSonOfGadsden 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good! Good!

2
TheSaltyVet 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hope they take them for millions.

4
zzyzyx 4 points ago +4 / -0

Billions. Better yet, Nuremberg their asses.

2
imnotdeadyet 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would have gone more than $75,000 in damages. I suspect after a delay tactic, Walmart will settle.

0
magamagashii 0 points ago +1 / -1

They might not settle.

Yeah, one or two, or three cases for $75K....not worth waking up the lawyers.

But 10,000 cases all asking for $75K.

Time to send the best medical lawyers in the country to crush that first case so their isn't a second one.

Walmart probably has Dr. Kyle Goldstienburgman, M.D., Esq. on the case for $2k an hour.

1
imnotdeadyet 1 point ago +1 / -0

It would be interesting to find out how many cases there are of Pharmacists declining to full Ivermectin RX's. I suspect they are all in Blue States. My local CVS has not given me any issues with my RX other than it getting expensive.

2
itsnew 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you are in AZ go to AZ Mix, they will dispense for you

1
spinometer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Excellent! Others should use this pdf to sue as well.

1
EdisonHwy 1 point ago +1 / -0

CASE 0:22-cv-00082-PJS-ECW Doc. 2 Filed 01/13/22 Page 1 of 19

Salier v. Walmart :::: U.S. District Court, Minnesota

1
quiznossucks1 1 point ago +1 / -0

2 months ago my local walmart called me when I put in for a prescription of iv'e and said you need to call your insurance provider to check for coverage ...I told the broad don't worry about it I'll pay cash she goes you know that will be $109 I replied back lucky for both of us I can afford it........FUCK EM'

1
johnqpublic864 1 point ago +1 / -0

All they gotta do is say they're gay and they'll win.

1
acidburn 1 point ago +1 / -0

i heard about this story. glad they are suing. we need more in court like this

1
Homemade-Soap 1 point ago +1 / -0

Any pharmacist who refuses a prescription should be shot.

1
d3plor4ble 1 point ago +1 / -0

fuckin' a. Murder for the money.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
-2
AmericaAllDay -2 points ago +2 / -4

This is a garbage lawsuit and it will quickly fail. How retarded do you have to be to not name the pharmacist who denied the prescription? Literally doesn't name the pharmacist in the lawsuit! And not only that, files a lawsuit before asking to talk with a manager!

I know some corporate people at Walmart Pharmacy. Their policy is to tell the pharmacy managers to use their professional judgment on whether or not to fill. So instead of suing the pharmacist, where he would have a case, he sues the pharmacy.

To succeed where this guy will fail, you need names, you need to talk to the pharmacy manager, and to sue Walmart, it would be extremely helpful to have talked to the District Manager.

1
Whiskey2niner 1 point ago +1 / -0

Suing the pharmacist might be the better option for the individual but putting a massive spotlight on these people or pharmacies who are blocking ivermectin could work.

1
AmericaAllDay 1 point ago +1 / -0

He can't put the spotlight on anyone if he can't name them. Walmart pharmacy itself is not doing it, the corporate policy is to leave it to the discretion of the pharmacists.

1
ikuyas 1 point ago +1 / -0

I thought to sue the individual pharmacist. Is it a bad idea? And why is that? My idea is that the individual pharmacist will call for a help to his manager, and his manager may at this moment decide to settle because simply giving him IVM ends the suit unless he wants compensation. If the manager talks to the district manager, then the district manager may settle. I don't really see any benefit for them to go higher up than that. Suppose he files in a local court, who the fuck is representing Walmart? Do you think the corporate is going to send their lawyers to (small?) town to appear in court? Do you think the individual pharmacist wants to appear in court? This is the point. They also need to calculate the cost and benefit of addressing the lawsuit. The injunction is so simple for them. I don't see much benefit for them to make it complicated.

2
magamagashii 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cost? $75k.

Benefit: This suit is dropped.

Downside? 10,000 more suits asking for $75K are filed in the next 90 days because they assume $75K is the magic number Walmart will pay to settle versus fight it.

1
AmericaAllDay 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes corporate will send their lawyers. The individual pharmacist certainly would not want to appear, which is another good reason to sue them.