Broadcast

Broadcast

Every decision, walked through by the anchor who wrote it. New episodes weekly.

Do It For The Caselaw
Do It For The Caselaw
Do It For The Caselaw

Federal appellate decisions, explained in plain English for working lawyers and legal operators.

Androidby EmailRSS

Latest episode

Case Explained: Nos. 25-1258 25-1265 THE CITY OF BOSTON; THE BOSTON PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION; THE BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY v. OPTUMRX, INC EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS ADMINISTRATORS, LLC d/b/a Express Scripts, f/k/a Medco Health, LLC; MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a Merck-Medco Managed Care LLC; EXPRESS SCRIPTS PHARMACY, INC.; ESI MAIL ORDER PROCESSING, INC.; ESI MAIL PHARMACY SERVICE, INC.; OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.; OPTUMINSIGHT LIFE SCIENCES, INC.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge] Before Gelpí, Lynch, and Howard Circuit Judges Mimi Liu and Frederick C. Baker, with whom Elizabeth Smith Michael J. Quirk, Motley Rice LLC, Adam Cederbaum, Corporation Counsel, City of Boston, Caesar P. Cardozo, General Counsel, Boston Housing Authority, Batool Raza, General Counsel, Boston Public Case: 25-1258 Document: 00118410959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Entry ID: 6789808 Health Commission, Christopher C. Naumes, Robert T. Naumes Sr and Naumes Law Group were on brief, for appellants Keith R. Blackwell, with whom Brian D. Boone, Matthew P Hooker, Matthew P. McGuire, Andrew Hatchett, Grace Assaye, Alston & Bird LLP, Shamis Beckley, Dane R. Voris, and Cooley LLP were on brief, for OptumRx, Inc; OptumInsight, Inc.; OptumInsight Life Sciences, Inc.; UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Christopher G. Michel, with whom Michael Lyle, Jonathan G Cooper, Patrick D. Curran, Alexander del Nido, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP were on brief, for Express Scripts, Inc.; Express Scripts Administrators, LLC; Medco Health Solutions; Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc.; ESI Mail Order Processing, Inc.; ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc March 2, 2026 Case: 25-1258 Document: 00118410959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Entry ID: 6789808 – 3 – LYNCH, Circuit Judge. The City of Boston and its Public Health Commission and Housing Authority (“the City”) sued two pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”), OptumRx and Express Scripts on January 12, 2024, in state court. The two defendants were alleged to have violated Massachusetts public nuisance law by colluding with opioid manufacturers to misrepresent the risks of such drugs, leading to injury to the City. The City had brought a similar suit in 2018 against those manufacturers, as well as distributors and pharmacies. After this case was removed to federal court, the PBMs moved to dismiss on grounds that the 2024 suit was brought well after the three-year state statute of limitations period had run. The City opposed dismissal, arguing that its complaint pled a plausible continuing nuisance theory It also argued that defendants had fraudulently concealed the cause of action from it, and that the time before the discovery of the City’s cause of action had to be excluded in determining the time limit for commencement of the action In a carefully reasoned opinion, the district court granted the PBM’s dismissal motion, finding the City knew or should have known well before 2021 of its alleged injuries from defendants’ actions and yet had not filed suit before the three- year statute of limitations had expired. City of Boston v. Express Case: 25-1258 Document: 00118410959 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Entry ID: 6789808 – 4 – Scripts, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 3d 31, 38-39 (D. Mass. 2025).1 The court found the City failed to plead a continuing nuisance under Massachusetts law, which requires a plaintiff to plead “recurring tortious or unlawful conduct” that occurs within the limitations period and cannot be “established by the continuation of harm caused by previous but terminated tortious or unlawful conduct.” Id. at 40 (emphasis added) (quoting Taygeta Corp. v. Varian Assocs., 763 N.E.2d 1053, 1065 (Mass. 2002)). The court held that the City’s complaint did not plead a continuing nuisance, as it included no “sufficiently specific recent act” by defendants that was itself tortious or unlawful. Id. The City’s “conclusory statements” “labeling [untimely] allegations as ‘ongoing'” did not convert those statements “into [timely] ‘factual allegations.'” Id. Indeed, the court noted that “[t]he most recent actions alleged” in the City’s complaint were “remedial measures [d]efendants took to address the opioid epidemic, not actionable misconduct.” Id The district court rejected the City’s tolling argument under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 12 for fraudulent concealment holding that theory “does not apply when ‘the plaintiff has actual knowledge of the claim,'” which is imputed to a plaintiff who “had 1 The district court als

All episodes 740 episodes

per page
May 31, 2026

Case Explained: Nos. 25-1258 25-1265 THE CITY OF BOSTON; THE BOSTON PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION; THE BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY v. OPTUMRX, INC EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS ADMINISTRATORS, LLC d/b/a Express Scripts, f/k/a Medco Health, LLC; MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a Merck-Medco Managed Care LLC; EXPRESS SCRIPTS PHARMACY, INC.; ESI MAIL ORDER PROCESSING, INC.; ESI MAIL PHARMACY SERVICE, INC.; OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.; OPTUMINSIGHT LIFE SCIENCES, INC.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge] Before Gelpí, Lynch, and Howard Circuit Judges Mimi Liu and Frederick C. Baker, with whom Elizabeth Smith Michael J. Quirk, Motley Rice LLC, Adam Cederbaum, Corporation Counsel, City of Boston, Caesar P. Cardozo, General Counsel, Boston Housing Authority, Batool Raza, General Counsel, Boston Public Case: 25-1265 Document: 00118410959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Entry ID: 6789808 Health Commission, Christopher C. Naumes, Robert T. Naumes Sr and Naumes Law Group were on brief, for appellants Keith R. Blackwell, with whom Brian D. Boone, Matthew P Hooker, Matthew P. McGuire, Andrew Hatchett, Grace Assaye, Alston & Bird LLP, Shamis Beckley, Dane R. Voris, and Cooley LLP were on brief, for OptumRx, Inc; OptumInsight, Inc.; OptumInsight Life Sciences, Inc.; UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Christopher G. Michel, with whom Michael Lyle, Jonathan G Cooper, Patrick D. Curran, Alexander del Nido, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP were on brief, for Express Scripts, Inc.; Express Scripts Administrators, LLC; Medco Health Solutions; Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc.; ESI Mail Order Processing, Inc.; ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc March 2, 2026 Case: 25-1265 Document: 00118410959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Entry ID: 6789808 – 3 – LYNCH, Circuit Judge. The City of Boston and its Public Health Commission and Housing Authority (“the City”) sued two pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”), OptumRx and Express Scripts on January 12, 2024, in state court. The two defendants were alleged to have violated Massachusetts public nuisance law by colluding with opioid manufacturers to misrepresent the risks of such drugs, leading to injury to the City. The City had brought a similar suit in 2018 against those manufacturers, as well as distributors and pharmacies. After this case was removed to federal court, the PBMs moved to dismiss on grounds that the 2024 suit was brought well after the three-year state statute of limitations period had run. The City opposed dismissal, arguing that its complaint pled a plausible continuing nuisance theory It also argued that defendants had fraudulently concealed the cause of action from it, and that the time before the discovery of the City’s cause of action had to be excluded in determining the time limit for commencement of the action In a carefully reasoned opinion, the district court granted the PBM’s dismissal motion, finding the City knew or should have known well before 2021 of its alleged injuries from defendants’ actions and yet had not filed suit before the three- year statute of limitations had expired. City of Boston v. Express Case: 25-1265 Document: 00118410959 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2026 Entry ID: 6789808 – 4 – Scripts, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 3d 31, 38-39 (D. Mass. 2025).1 The court found the City failed to plead a continuing nuisance under Massachusetts law, which requires a plaintiff to plead “recurring tortious or unlawful conduct” that occurs within the limitations period and cannot be “established by the continuation of harm caused by previous but terminated tortious or unlawful conduct.” Id. at 40 (emphasis added) (quoting Taygeta Corp. v. Varian Assocs., 763 N.E.2d 1053, 1065 (Mass. 2002)). The court held that the City’s complaint did not plead a continuing nuisance, as it included no “sufficiently specific recent act” by defendants that was itself tortious or unlawful. Id. The City’s “conclusory statements” “labeling [untimely] allegations as ‘ongoing'” did not convert those statements “into [timely] ‘factual allegations.'” Id. Indeed, the court noted that “[t]he most recent actions alleged” in the City’s complaint were “remedial measures [d]efendants took to address the opioid epidemic, not actionable misconduct.” Id The district court rejected the City’s tolling argument under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 12 for fraudulent concealment holding that theory “does not apply when ‘the plaintiff has actual knowledge of the claim,'” which is imputed to a plaintiff who “had 1 The district court als