J&J Plans to Appeal $572M Judgment in Okla. Opioid Trial
"The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma. It must be abated immediately," Cleveland County District Court Judge Thad Balkman told a crowded courtroom on Monday, according to coverage by Courtroom View Network.
August 26, 2019 at 05:25 PM
7 minute read
An Oklahoma judge has ordered that Johnson & Johnson pay more than $572 million to abate the state's opioid crisis.
The bench verdict, announced by Cleveland County District Court Judge Thad Balkman on Monday, comes in the first trial against an opioid company. Oklahoma had asked for a $17.5 billion abatement plan over 30 years, alleging that Johnson & Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals, as the sole defendant, created a public nuisance when it oversupplied opiate pharmaceuticals in the state, leading to massive deaths and addictions.
But Balkman limited the abatement costs to what was needed in the next year.
"The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma. It must be abated immediately," Balkman told a crowded courtroom, according to coverage by Courtroom View Network.
He entered a 42-page judgment against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen for $572,102,028.
"The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and a menace to Oklahomans," he added. "My judgment includes findings of fact and conclusions of law that the state met its burden that the defendants, Janssen and Johnson & Johnson's misleading marketing and promotion of opioids created a nuisance."
Specifically, he said, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen created a nuisance that caused an increased rate of addiction, overdose deaths and addicted babies in Oklahoma.
"Today is a major victory for the state of Oklahoma, the nation and everyone who has lost a loved one because of an opioid overdose," Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said in a statement. "Judge Balkman has affirmed our position that Johnson & Johnson maliciously and diabolically created the opioid epidemic in our state. Our evidence convincingly showed that this company did not just lie and mislead, they colluded with other companies in route to the deadliest man-made epidemic our nation has ever seen. When deaths and sales of the drugs began to skyrocket in tandem, the company repeatedly ignored the problem and built its billion dollar brand out of greed and on the backs of the pain and suffering of Oklahomans."
Johnson & Johnson said it plans to appeal.
"Janssen did not cause the opioid crisis in Oklahoma, and neither the facts nor the law support this outcome," said Michael Ullmann, general counsel of Johnson & Johnson. "We recognize the opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue and we have deep sympathy for everyone affected. We are working with partners to find ways to help those in need."
Lawyers suing opioid manufacturers and distributors, in both state and federal courts across the country, closely watched the trial. An Oct. 21 trial would be the first in the multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, in Cleveland, which now encompasses nearly 2,000 cases, primarily brought by cities and counties, over the opioid crisis.
In its statement, Johnson & Johnson said the decision would have little impact on the upcoming trial in the multidistrict litigation, which names 21 other defendants and additional claims other than public nuisance. "The Company remains open to viable options to resolve these cases, including through settlement," the company said in a press release on Monday.
Lead plaintiffs' attorneys in the multidistrict litigation—Paul Farrell of Greene, Ketchum, Farrell, Bailey & Tweel; Paul Hanly of Simmons Hanly Conroy; and Joseph Rice of Motley Rice—said the decision would strengthen the claims of their clients, including the two Ohio counties preparing for the upcoming trial.
"Today's ruling holding Johnson & Johnson liable for Oklahoma's opioid epidemic serves as another milestone amid the mounting evidence against the opioid pharmaceutical industry who we allege started, fueled, and conspired to create the largest public health crisis of our time," they wrote. "The ruling in favor of the State of Oklahoma's public nuisance claims confirms what communities have been saying for some time: The opioid epidemic significantly interfered with public health. While public nuisance laws differ in every state, this decision is a critical step forward for the more than 2,000 cities, counties, and towns we represent in the consolidation of federal opioid cases."
Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, said that if an appeals court did not reverse the decision, "almost any industry could be the target of large-scale litigation."
"Today's decision is based on questionable legal claims from an ill-conceived lawsuit that will do little to solve Oklahoma's opioid crisis," she said in a statement. "No one denies the magnitude of the opioid problem in Oklahoma, but letting private lawyers distort the scarcely-used public nuisance theory in hopes of getting a massive settlement isn't the solution."
Jennifer Braceras, director of the Independent Women's Forum's Center for Law & Liberty, also said the decision will not do much to solve the opioid crisis. "The verdict is a victory for taxation by litigation, but it is consumers who will pay the price in the form of higher prices and reduced access to pain medications for patients who need them," she said in a statement.
American Tort Reform Association President Tiger Joyce noted that Hunter, a Republican, had joined with 17 other states, in a May 17 amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in opposing the use of public nuisance law to pursue claims over climate change.
"AG Mike Hunter's use of public nuisance law and the judge's decision to let it stand is a major expansion in this area of law," Joyce said in a statement. "We fear that other industries, including Oklahoma's oil and gas producers, may now be vulnerable to public nuisance law's applicability to them with regard to issues like climate change as the state looks for additional funding sources to manage public crises."
The Oklahoma case initially named Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals, along with Janssen. Purdue settled out of the case in March for $270 million. One day before trial, Teva agreed to pay $85 million, leaving Johnson & Johnson as the only defendant at trial.
At the trial, which began May 28 in Norman, Oklahoma, lawyers for the state of Oklahoma argued that Johnson & Johnson's aggressive marketing of its opioids led doctors and hospital staff, and others, to believe the painkillers were not addictive and could be appropriate for pain treatment in the long term. Joining Hunter at trial were Brad Beckworth, a partner at Nix Patterson in Austin, Texas, and Michael Burrage and Reggie Whitten, co-founders of Whitten Burrage in Oklahoma City.
Johnson & Johnson's lawyers brought up rampant misuse of its prescription painkillers, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved. Their products also come with warnings labels, one of several factors influencing decisions by doctors to prescribe opiate painkillers. Larry Ottaway of Oklahoma City's Foliart Huff Ottaway & Bottom, represented Johnson & Johnson.
But Balkman, in his judgment, found the evidence favored the plaintiffs' allegations. "The facts show defendants engaged in false and misleading marketing of both their drugs and opioids generally, and the law makes clear that such conduct is more than enough to serve as the act or omission necessary to establish the first element of Oklahoma's public nuisance law," he wrote.
He disagreed with Johnson & Johnson's assertion that public nuisance law was limited to property matters, or that the First Amendment protected its marketing statements.
His calculation of abatement costs included $232.9 million for assessments for addiction treatment services, $107.7 million for evaluating babies born addicted to opioids, and nearly $103.3 million for staff to administer pain management therapies. The judgment also included attorney fees.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readConsumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
4 minute read'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250