Sewickley lawyer sues pharmacies, alleges ID theft with pills |

Sewickley lawyer sues pharmacies, alleges ID theft with pills

CVS and Giant Eagle pharmacies allowed other people to fill oxycodone prescriptions made out in his name and, in Giant Eagle’s case, then charged his health insurance, a local attorney says in a proposed class-action lawsuit moved to federal court on Monday.

Andrew Gabriel, whose office is in Sewickley, is suing the pharmacies for negligently handling the security of personal information, identity theft, invasion of privacy and other claims. He’s suing on behalf of a national class that numbers in the “hundreds of thousands,” the lawsuit says.

Gabriel couldn’t be reached for comment.

“We deny the allegations in the lawsuit and intend to defend the case vigorously,” said CVS spokesman Michael DeAngelis, who declined further comment.

Giant Eagle spokesman Dick Roberts said: “The claims being made are without merit and will be vigorously contested.”

Gabriel first sued in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. CVS had it moved to federal court because it crosses state lines.

The lawsuit says Gabriel learned that the pharmacies had allowed other people to obtain oxycodone and other controlled substances in his name on May 14, 2012, when a Pittsburgh police detective called to tell him he was the victim of identity theft.

The person presenting the prescription also showed prescriptions in several other names, the lawsuit says. Because the prescriptions were for frequently abused drugs, the pharmacies should have taken extra care in filling them, according to the lawsuit.

“Defendants repeatedly failed to conduct themselves as trusted professionals in favor of profit-seeking behavior by consciously ignoring or being indifferent to these well-known medical identity theft risks,” the lawsuit says.

Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.