William Salier v. Walmart, Inc., No. 22-2960 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
A Missouri physician prescribed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to Minnesota residents (Plaintiffs) to treat their severe COVID-19 infections. Pharmacists at Walmart and Hy-Vee stores in Albert Lea, Minnesota, refused to fill the prescriptions. the district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of their claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failure to plausibly plead that the pharmacists’ alleged actions amounted to “extreme and outrageous” conduct.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The allegation that the Hy-Vee pharmacist said he was following “corporate policy” is neither extreme nor outrageous in these stressful circumstances. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege experiencing physical or specific psychological consequences after the pharmacists refused to fill their prescriptions, nor that they sought medical or mental health treatment for their distress. To the contrary, they allege both fully recovered from COVID-19 two weeks after self-treating with horse paste.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - COVID-19. Defendants refused to fill plaintiffs' prescriptions for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for off-label use to treat plaintiffs' COVID-19 symptoms; plaintiffs sued alleging violation of their common law right of self-determination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed the claims, refusing to certify the self-determination claim to the Supreme Court of Minnesota and finding plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege the extreme and outrageous conduct required under Minnesota law to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Held: The Supreme Court of Minnesota would not recognize a "right to self-determination;" plaintiffs failed to plead a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; the district court did not err in refusing to certify the self-determination issue to the Minnesota Supreme Court. [ August 04, 2023 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.