Court Opinion

ID: 4968962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-24 16:30:22.368283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:27.325431
License: Public Domain

Justice BAER,
concurring.
While I agree with the thoughtful analysis set forth in the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (OAJC) regarding *364the rebate issue in its entirety, I concur in the disposition of a remand and write to articulate my view as to why I believe a remand is appropriate. The OAJC, based upon its reasoning that the Commonwealth inappropriately disregarded the rebate issue and the lower court erred in addressing the question, would simply reverse the case for entry of judgment in favor of Bristol Myers Squibb Company (BMS), thus ending the case. I am not certain, however, that the errors articulated by the OAJC with regard to the rebate issue necessarily nullify the judgment upon liability or conclude this case entirely concerning alleged violations of consumer protection and trade practices in terms of damages, counsel fees or cost. For this reason, I believe a remand to the Commonwealth Court for further consideration of the case in light of the OAJC’s analysis of the rebate issue would be appropriate so that the lower court, in the first instance, may decide if the rebate issue as discussed in the OAJC puts an end to the litigation. A remand will provide the parties and the court with a full opportunity for hearing in order to consider how the rebate issue affects the verdict and all aspects of this complex litigation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I believe a remand is warranted and, therefore, concur in the OAJC’s disposition.
Justices TODD and McCAFFERY join this concurring opinion.