CMA Defends Physician Independence in Federal Case with Statewide Implications

The California Medical Association (CMA) has filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit that could have sweeping consequences for physician autonomy and the future of California’s legal protections against corporate interference in medicine.

At issue is the longstanding prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine—a foundational safeguard that ensures licensed physicians, not corporations, make medical decisions based on patient need, not profit.

While the case—Eli Lilly & Company v. Mochi Health Corp., et al. (Case No. 3:25-cv-03534-JSC)—centers on allegations of unlawful compounding and distribution of prescription medications, CMA intervened to ensure that California’s corporate bar is not mischaracterized or prematurely dismissed on procedural grounds.

Why It Matters to Los Angeles Physicians

The corporate bar prevents non-medical entities from exerting control—directly or indirectly—over the medical judgment of physicians. This legal doctrine is rooted in California public policy and serves as a critical firewall between clinical care and commercial influence.

In this case, the defendants argue that only the Medical Board of California has standing to enforce the corporate bar. CMA counters that this interpretation misrepresents state law and undermines key enforcement mechanisms.

“Courts have long recognized the right of private parties to pursue claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law when there are allegations of unlawful business practices—including violations of the corporate bar,” CMA’s brief states.

The brief also highlights that the Medical Board itself has acknowledged the importance of private legal action in protecting physicians from improper corporate influence.

Upholding the Physician-Patient Relationship

By participating as amicus curiae, CMA is reaffirming its commitment to defending the independent medical judgment of physicians and maintaining the integrity of the physician-patient relationship. The association is urging the court to allow the case to proceed so the allegations can be evaluated on their merits—not dismissed on a technicality.