Case Explained: Scholl, et al. v. Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-06 Docket: 4:21-CV-00363-JDR-MTS) The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy in a negligence action brought by the Scholls under Oklahoma law. The court held that Walgreens owed no legal duty to fill J.J.S.’s prescription for Lupron Depot prior to July 13, 2020, and therefore could not be liable for negligence based on its failure to do so during that period. The court applied the standard of review de novo for summary judgment and interpreted Oklahoma state law regarding the existence of a duty in negligence cases. The appellate panel concluded that under the Oklahoma Pharmacy Act and relevant administrative regulations, pharmacists have no general statutory or regulatory duty to fill prescriptions. The court relied on *Pharmcare Okla., Inc. v. State Health Care Auth.* and noted that Oklahoma regulations explicitly clarify a pharmacist’s right not to fill a valid prescription. Furthermore, the court found that Walgreens’ conduct did not create a common-law duty because there was no evidence in the record of an affirmative promise or undertaking by Walgreens to fill the specific prescription before July 13. The Scholls failed to point to any additional evidence that could have created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of such a duty. As a result of this decision, the judgment in favor of Walgreens stands, and the negligence claim against the pharmacy is dismissed without further proceedings. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.