STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. DAVE YOST, Attorney General of Ohio v. ASCENT HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; CIGNA GROUP; EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC.; PRIME THERAPEUTICS LLC - Articles

All Content

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. DAVE YOST, Attorney General of Ohio v. ASCENT HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; CIGNA GROUP; EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC.; PRIME THERAPEUTICS LLC

Posted by: Julia Wilburn on Jan 28, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Daniel J. Howley, RULE GARZA HOWLEY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Michael J. Hendershot, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Daniel J. Howley, Charles F. Rule, Emily M. Renzelli, Benjamin Z. Bergmann, Erica N. Baum, RULE GARZA HOWLEY LLP, Washington, D.C., Jaime Stilson, DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Matthew L. Jalandoni, W. Benjamin Reese, FLANNERY GEORGALIS LLC, Columbus, Ohio, David J. Butler, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Jeanne M. Cors, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Michael J. Hendershot, T. Elliot Gaiser, Jennifer L. Pratt, Sarah Mader, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; BOGGS and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

The State of Ohio filed this lawsuit in state court, alleging that a group of healthcare firms conspired to drive up prices of prescription drugs in violation of several Ohio laws. The defendant firms include two Pharmacy Benefit Managers, known in the industry as PBMs, that negotiate with drug companies to provide prescription drug coverage for federal employees. The PBMs removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. Ohio moved to remand, arguing that its complaint does not impose liability on any conduct undertaken at the direction of a federal officer. We conclude that it does and reverse the district court’s contrary determination.

Attachments: