[ad_1]
Oklahoma’s highest court on Tuesday overturned a 2019 ruling that required Johnson & Johnson to pay the state $465 million for its role in the opioid epidemic. it was second time this month He said a court had overruled a key legal strategy used by plaintiffs in thousands of cases trying to hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable for the crisis.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court, 5-1, dismissed the state’s claim that the company violated “public nuisance” laws by aggressively exaggerating the benefits of prescription opioid pain relievers and downplaying the dangers.
The decision, along with a California state judge’s similar opinion on Nov. 1, may herald the dash of plaintiffs’ hopes of finding favorable resolutions against opioid manufacturers, distributors and retailers in courts nationwide. The decision may also encourage companies to dig.
However, it is unclear how much impact the Oklahoma decision may ultimately have on cases elsewhere, as many of the laws that offend the public are state-specific. The Oklahoma judges’ decision underlined that they read state law.
“The Oklahoma public nuisance law does not cover the manufacture, marketing and sale of prescription opioids,” the judges said in a majority opinion Tuesday.
According to federal data, the abuse of opioids has contributed to the deaths of nearly 500,000 people in the United States since the late 1990s, and the toll has only gotten worse during the Covid pandemic.
Oklahoma case It was the first state case to be prosecuted against an opioid manufacturer.. The August 2019 ruling was a heartening signal to plaintiffs’ attorneys across the country that their legal strategy may be viable—even though the amount the company was ordered to pay was significantly less than the $17 billion sought.
In a statement, Johnson & Johnson said it had “deep sympathy” for all those affected by the opioid epidemic, citing Janssen, the pharmaceutical division. However, the company added: “The clear and indisputable decision of the Oklahoma State Supreme Court reflects the realities of this case: Janssen’s actions in the marketing and promotion of these important prescription pain medications were appropriate and responsible and did not offend the public.”
In their view, the judges weighed in on the response that the company had not promoted its products in recent years and sold one of its product lines in 2015. The judges ruled that manufacturers could not be held “permanently responsible” for their products. .
The Oklahoma attorney general’s office had argued that health was a public right that Johnson & Johnson had violated under state nuisance laws. Other opioid manufacturers targeted in the state’s lawsuit, including Teva and Purdue Pharma, settled their cases before this court case against Johnson & Johnson began. May 2019. This decision does not affect these agreements.
Oklahoma attorney general John O’Connor expressed disappointment with the decision, but said: “We continue to pursue further pending claims against opioid distributors who, for decades, have flooded our communities with these highly addictive drugs. Oklahomans deserve no less.”
In the new ruling, judges said Oklahoma’s 1910 public nuisance law typically referred to the repeal of a public right, such as access to roads, clean water or air. The judges found fault with the state’s case, saying the case did not identify a public right under distress law and instead sought to apply a “new theory” to a more likely product liability case.
The judges said the state’s alleged harm was caused by the company’s legal product, the Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription opioids. The court ruled that individuals rather than the general public suffered.
Other litigation flaws cited by judges echoed criticism earlier this month by a California state judge who favored Johnson & Johnson. Oklahoma judges said that after the drug left the field of use, the company had no control over the distribution and use of its product – an argument that has been successfully used by gun manufacturers to set aside lawsuits that have offended the public.
“Regulation of prescription opioids rests with the federal and state legislatures and their agencies,” Oklahoma judges wrote. They were citing the Drug Enforcement Administration, which should monitor pill diversion as well as the FDA, and the state’s own prescription monitoring program.
Elizabeth Burch, a professor of law at the University of Georgia, cautioned that these two decisions should not be interpreted too broadly to predict the fate of other cases that go to the courts, because other states have their own publicly disturbing laws.
He noted that the Oklahoma decision goes further than the California decision because the public nuisance law cannot be used against any organization in the drug supply chain, including distributors and pharmacies.
But he said the decision could potentially affect plaintiffs’ response to Johnson & Johnson’s decision. Big national reconciliation proposal in Julywhen he offered to pay $5 billion over nine years to settle all opioid cases against him.
The company’s offer should be accepted by the majority of the thousands of local governments that have filed lawsuits.
“I wish I was a plaintiff who was indecisive about whether to enter J.&J. If I am risk-averse, this decision may bring me closer to reconciliation,” said Mrs. Burch.
[ad_2]
Source link