Preview Newsletter
Opioid Litigation Daily Media Report - 11/28/17
-
Putnam Agrees to Sue Pharmaceutical Companies Over Opioid Epidemic
Nov 27, 2017 | Hudson Valley News Network (NY)
By Kathy Welsh
Determined to battle the cause of the opioid crisis in Putnam, County Executive MaryEllen Odell urged the Legislature to allow the government to join various states and counties across the country in filing lawsuits against both pharmaceutical companies and distributors, which have created the nationwide opioid epidemic through the fraudulent and negligent marketing and distribution of opioid pain medications. -
Putnam Suing Pharmaceutical Companies Over Opioid Epidemic
Nov 27, 2017 | Putnam Daily Voice (NY)
By Sam Barron
Putnam County is aiming to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for the opioid crisis that has devastated the county. -
Gallatin County commissioners considering suing pharmaceutical companies
Nov 28, 2017 | Bozeman Daily Chronicle (MT)
By Freddy Monares
Gallatin County commissioners are considering filing a lawsuit against several pharmaceutical companies that produce opioid pain killers, alleging the companies downplayed the risks of serious addiction to the drugs. -
Mecklenburg County may sue drug companies over opioid crisis
Nov 27, 2017 | WSOC (NC)
By Joe Bruno
The opioid crisis has affected millions of families across the Carolinas and now Mecklenburg County leaders are thinking about joining a legal fight against the drug companies. -
Shreveport may sue pharma companies over opioids
Nov 27, 2017 | The Shreverport Times (TX)
By Lex Talamo
The City of Shreveport may soon take on Big Pharma, following a state trend that may have contributed to the state's soaring opioid use and addiction. -
Detroit to Sue Opioid Drugmakers and Distributors
Nov 28, 2017 | Addiction Now
By Topher Avery
The Detroit City Council has approved funding to hire two law firms to represent the city as they sue opioid drugmakers and distributors they say are responsible for the opioid crisis. -
The Opioid Epidemic - What Kind of a Problem Is It?
Nov 27, 2017 | Lexology
By James M. Beck - Reed Smith LLP
We know that our blogposts are carried by legal aggregating services, such as Lexology and JDSupra. Some of you may even be reading this post via one of these services. In addition to writing for them, we actually read them, too. Sometimes we find interesting things on them – like last week. -
Case to Watch: Panel to consider creating opioid MDL
Nov 27, 2017 | Reuters
By Nate Raymond
Lawyers representing local governments in lawsuits against drug manufacturers and distributors for their roles in the opioid epidemic will appear before a federal panel in St. Louis on Thursday to argue that the cases should be heard before a single judge. -
Opioid lawsuit: Reno lawyer makes bid for the case if city sues
Nov 27, 2017 | Reno Gazette Journal
By Anjeanette Damon
Reno lawyer Bill Bradley is making a play for the city of Reno's business if it decides to sue opioid manufacturers to recoup money the city has spent addressing the addiction crisis. -
News 12 Westchester
Nov 28, 2017 | N12WC (News 12)
By New York, NY
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/31011426?token=04e8b4d3-9592-433d-bcb9-fe6fbad242be -
Fox 40 HD News AM Edition
Nov 28, 2017 | WICZ (FOX)
By Binghamton, NY
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/31011530?token=04e8b4d3-9592-433d-bcb9-fe6fbad242be -
Channel 2 Action News at 4:00PM
Nov 27, 2017 | WSB (ABC)
By Atlanta, GA
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/31011553?token=04e8b4d3-9592-433d-bcb9-fe6fbad242be -
Eyewitness News Midday
Nov 27, 2017 | WSOC (ABC)
By Charlotte, NC
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/31011560?token=04e8b4d3-9592-433d-bcb9-fe6fbad242be
Putnam County, NY
Other Litigation Coverage
Commentary and FYIs
Broadcast Media Coverage
-
Putnam Agrees to Sue Pharmaceutical Companies Over Opioid Epidemic
Nov 27, 2017 | Hudson Valley News Network (NY)
By Kathy Welsh
Determined to battle the cause of the opioid crisis in Putnam, County Executive MaryEllen Odell urged the Legislature to allow the government to join various states and counties across the country in filing lawsuits against both pharmaceutical companies and distributors, which have created the nationwide opioid epidemic through the fraudulent and negligent marketing and distribution of opioid pain medications.
“New York State has been one of the hardest hit states in the nation, with the rate of prescription and heroin overdoses exceeding almost every other state in the country; and Putnam County is not immune from it,” said Odell. “Through our One Army in the War Against Addiction the county has worked with law enforcement agencies and many not-for-profit organizations to fight the battle within our communities through awareness, education and enforcement, but we need to do more.”
She added, “As president of the New York Association of Counties, I think it is imperative that we learn from the tobacco lawsuits if the 1990s and collectively go after the source of the prescription opioid epidemic—the pharmaceutical manufactures and distributors, and hold them accountability for the fraudulent and negligent practices they engaged in which caused immeasurable harm to Putnam County residents and taxpayers.”
At a special full legislature meeting held on Tuesday, Nov. 21, the Legislature voted 8-0, with legislator Dini LoBue absent, to have the law firm of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC to represent Putnam County’s interests in the New York Opioid Cost Recovery litigation.
Napoli Shkolnik, which has recently been named co-lead council in the coordinated opioid litigation, has been investigating potential claims on behalf of both individuals and governmental entities against pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. The law firm recommends that claims for deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, public nuisance, fraud, unjust enrichment, as well as other State specific violations be brought against the largest manufacturers and marketers of opioid. Those companies include: Purdue Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Johnson and Johnson, and Endo Pharmaceuticals, as well as the largest distributors of these drugs, including McKesson Corp., Cardinal health Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Corp.
The goal of the proposed litigation would be to fully compensate Putnam County for unnecessary cost incurred as a result of prescription opioid abuse, including workplace costs relative to loss of productivity, healthcare costs such as abuse treatment and criminal justice costs.
“I believe everyone has known someone, directly or indirectly, affected by the devastation of opioids,” said Leg. Ginny Nacerino, chairwoman of the Putnam County Legislature. “The Legislature’s 8-0 support of this resolution speaks volumes to the value we place on the health, safety and welfare of our residents and has little to do with monetary gain. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our neighbors to fight those responsible for the opioid epidemic which has plagued and devastated our communities. It is important to raise awareness to the origin, and it is time for those companies to take responsibility. Unfortunately, the damage created by such negligence and depravity is irreversible, resulting in both pain and suffering and the loss of many lives. It is truly shameful.”
In addition to Putnam, other New York counties participating in the lawsuit include: Broome, Dutchess, Eerie, Genesee, Nassau, Niagara, Orange, Saratoga, Schenectady, Seneca, Sullivan and Suffolk.
-
Putnam Suing Pharmaceutical Companies Over Opioid Epidemic
Nov 27, 2017 | Putnam Daily Voice (NY)
By Sam Barron
Putnam County is aiming to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for the opioid crisis that has devastated the county.
County Executive Mary Ellen Odell said Putnam is joining other New York counties in a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies and distributors, claiming they caused the opioid crisis through fraudulent and negligent marketing and the distribution of opioid pain medications.
“New York State has been one of the hardest hit states in the nation, with the rate of prescription and heroin overdoses exceeding almost every other state in the country; and Putnam County is not immune from it,” said Odell.
Odell said she was inspired by the lawsuits against the tobacco industry in the 1990s. Last week, the Putnam County Board of Legislators voted 8-0 to hire a law firm to represent Putnam's interests in the New York Opioid Cost Recovery litigation.
The goal of the litigation would be to fully compensate Putnam for unnecessary cost incurred as a result of prescription opioid abuse, including workplace costs relative to the loss of productivity, healthcare costs such as abuse treatment and criminal justice costs, the county said
-
Gallatin County commissioners considering suing pharmaceutical companies
Nov 28, 2017 | Bozeman Daily Chronicle (MT)
By Freddy Monares
Gallatin County commissioners are considering filing a lawsuit against several pharmaceutical companies that produce opioid pain killers, alleging the companies downplayed the risks of serious addiction to the drugs.
A number of pharmaceutical companies are listed in a draft retention agreement between Gallatin County and Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., a Texas law firm, and Bozeman law firm Beck, Amsden and Stalpes, PLLC. The agreement also extends to other pharmaceutical companies that have fraudulently marketed and sold addictive opiate-derived painkillers in the county.
Bozeman Attorney Justin Stalpes has been discussing the possibility of litigation with Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert. The county would be claiming that the pharmaceutical companies caused a nuisance, and harmed it by downplaying the risk of addiction to opioid medication, he said.
In nuisance claims, Stalpes said plaintiffs usually ask for compensation for past harms and abatement of an issue. In this case reduction of the problem would take shape as resources for prevention, addiction therapy, identification treatment and additional resources for law enforcement.
“I think we could do a lot of good, it’s just undoing the harm already caused by the opioid crisis,” Stalpes said.
Research into the cost the county has had to pay for these resources would determine how much it could ask for in the case, he said. The county could also ask for additional expenditures that would be needed to deal with the problem in the future, Stalpes said.
At last week’s commission meeting on Tuesday, Lambert said he had spoken with the director for the Montana Crime Lab about the prevalence of opioids in the state. In the last four years, he said, more than 1,600 substances tested by the lab as part of criminal investigations were positive for opioids.
To localize the issue, Lambert said there were a substantial number of cases that came from the Missouri River Drug Task Force, the Bozeman Police Department, the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office and the Belgrade Police Department.
“There’s no doubt that that greatly undercounts the number of persons over the four years, over that same period of time, who were using opioids,” he said.
At that meeting Stalpes said he believes there are some responsible parties in the county’s opioid addiction crisis.
Pharmaceutical companies, he said, have invented a term called “pseudoaddiction.” The medical literature, Stalpes said, defined the term as drug-seeking behavior such as asking for more medication because pain is not adequately managed.
“Psuedoaddiction can be satiated by prescribing more drugs,” he said at last week’s meeting.
Stalpes said he has not made a decision of what court they would file the lawsuit in, if the county wishes to proceed.
If the complaint is filed at the federal level, he said it runs the risk of being consolidated with similar cases across the country. If the state were to file the lawsuit on behalf of the counties and recover damages, Gallatin County would not be able to duplicate the complaint.
Stalpes said other counties like Missoula, Yellowstone, Cascade and Anaconda-Deer Lodge are considering filing similar lawsuits. He said he is unsure whether they would file as one group, or keep the complaints separate.
At last week’s Tuesday meeting, Commissioners Steve White and Don Seifert said this is an important issue that needed to be addressed. They both agreed that proceeding with the discussion was the right path to take in combating opioid addiction in the county.
“We got a duty to those citizens that are suffering from these addictions to provide services, and to make the best decision we can concerning these problems,” Seifert said.
The draft retention agreement outlines rewards for the two law firms of 33.3 percent of gross recovery from the lawsuit. Stalpes said the county would not incur additional costs other than research expenses that may take place to prove its case.
Commissioners will make a final decision on whether to enter litigation at their Dec. 5 meeting at 9 a.m. at the county courthouse.
-
Mecklenburg County may sue drug companies over opioid crisis
Nov 27, 2017 | WSOC (NC)
By Joe Bruno
The opioid crisis has affected millions of families across the Carolinas and now Mecklenburg County leaders are thinking about joining a legal fight against the drug companies.
The county is thinking about suing drug companies and/or manufacturers over the opioid crisis, according to a source.
Earlier this month, during a closed session meeting, commissioners voted to explore this option.
Leaders in Buncombe County announced a similar lawsuit two weeks ago.
The county is going to explore a couple of different legal options but a source said the suit likely wouldn't cost anything.
Republican Commissioner Matthew Ridenhour said he is in favor of this and thinks the county should hold drug companies accountable.
“It would be a travesty for us to sit back and say, ‘Eh, we are going to sit this one out.’ I think we need to make a stand and take some sort of action,” Ridenhour said.
The process is in its early stages and county staffers are likely to make a recommendation in the coming weeks.
-
Shreveport may sue pharma companies over opioids
Nov 27, 2017 | The Shreverport Times (TX)
By Lex Talamo
The City of Shreveport may soon take on Big Pharma, following a state trend that may have contributed to the state's soaring opioid use and addiction.
A resolution on the city council agenda this week would allow the city to join Gov. John Bel Edwards and Louisiana Department of Health in suing pharmaceutical companies for the "fraudulent and negligent marketing and distribution of opioids."
"The lawsuit has not yet been filed," said City Attorney William Bradford. "But the resolution in council this week would allow the city to pursue that."
Edwards and the Louisiana Department of Health sued opioid drug manufacturers on Sept. 27. The department reported an average 110 prescriptions written for every 100 residents in the state in the past year.
The lawsuit seeks damages equal to the amounts the state paid for excessive opioid prescriptions and treatment, according to a press release from the governor's office.
"These drug companies led prescribers to believe that opioids were not addictive and even suggested that treating physicians prescribe greater dosage units to those who had already become addicted," Edwards said in a written statement.
The city council resolution requests a retainer agreement with the New York personal injury law firm Napoli Shkolnik — which describes itself as "dedicated to delivering justice for victims of injuries and wrongs — and the New Orleans-based attorney Kenneth M. Carter to serve as outside legal council.
The attorneys would be hired on a contingency basis, in which they would receive 25 percent of any damages awarded.
The resolution, to be formally introduced on Tuesday, Nov. 28, will be up for final passage on Dec. 12.
-
Detroit to Sue Opioid Drugmakers and Distributors
Nov 28, 2017 | Addiction Now
By Topher Avery
The Detroit City Council has approved funding to hire two law firms to represent the city as they sue opioid drugmakers and distributors they say are responsible for the opioid crisis.
The council approved the hiring of the Sam Bernstein Law Firm in Farmington Hills, Michigan and the firm Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. in Detroit to provide the city with representation in the lawsuit, which the council plans to file by the end of the year.
In October, the Michigan counties of Oakland and Wayne announced that they would be filing a joint lawsuit against opioid manufacturers and distributors. That lawsuit alleges that 12 big pharma companies violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, among other laws and consumer protections.
In 2016, the number of opioid overdose related deaths in Wayne County totaled 817, compared with 506 opioid related deaths in 2015.
According to the Oakland and Wayne Counties lawsuit, one of the primary causes of the opioid addiction epidemic is the deceptive marketing and sales practices used by the pharmaceutical companies. The counties cited a plethora of financial consequences that had been created by the opioid crisis, including law enforcement costs and substance abuse treatment plans.
As the opioid crisis continues to ravage the country, driving the need for adequate access to addiction recovery treatment across the U.S., many similar lawsuits have been filed. Other cities, such as Chicago, have filed suits against big pharma companies, as well as multiple states, including Ohio and Missouri.
According to the Detroit City Council, the proliferation of opioids has increased the city’s medical and substance abuse treatment costs. Comparing the suits across the country with those filed against big tobacco companies several decades ago, those on the council say they hope to ensure Detroit receives adequate compensation for the devastation opioids have wrought on their streets.
-
The Opioid Epidemic - What Kind of a Problem Is It?
Nov 27, 2017 | Lexology
By James M. Beck - Reed Smith LLP
We know that our blogposts are carried by legal aggregating services, such as Lexology and JDSupra. Some of you may even be reading this post via one of these services. In addition to writing for them, we actually read them, too. Sometimes we find interesting things on them – like last week.
A bit of background, first. Other than providing readers with: (1) a post on how the municipal cost recovery rule is useful against municipal/county attempts to recover the cost of governmental services (actually, so can the economic loss and derivative injury rules, but we haven’t blogged about those − yet); and (2) some other posts on how the in pari delicto doctrine can be employed to defeat suits by individuals harmed by their own criminal activity, we haven’t had all that much to say about the “opioid epidemic.” It’s a fast moving area, and to some extent it resembles the spate of litigation over firearms marketing (where Bexis became familiar with municipal cost recovery) a couple of decades ago. In other ways it resembles something much more sinister – how the states ganged up to extort money from various cigarette companies after the companies had consistently prevailed in ordinary product liability litigation.
So while we feel we should have something to say about this “opioid epidemic” litigation threat to our clients, it’s difficult to decide what. We were very interested to read – on JDSupra – a recent thought-provoking article entitled “De-Bunking the Opioid Litigation Epidemic.” That blogpost is mostly about how overheated “opioid epidemic” rhetoric (and litigation) has outrun any basis in science. Briefly, it makes the following points:The annual addiction rate for opioids used according to prescription is between 1 and 2%.The vast majority of opioid overdoses stem from polypharmacy (use of more than one drug).A few bad actors among the medical community are disproportionately responsible for opioid prescriptions.Medical mistakes involving opioids factor into almost a quarter of drug-related medical malpractice suits.Opioid abuse is strongly associated with mood disorders, depression, and mental illness.To determine who is likely to abuse opioids, start with people who have already illegally used drugs.
We compliment the Kelley Drye folks for this effort, and encourage our readers to read the whole article.
So what can we add? We point out that, as to the last bullet point, injuries from illegal opioid use are precisely the sort of injuries that the in pari delicto doctrine was designed to preclude from being recovered in litigation.
Well, what about the states as plaintiffs? In general we’re big fans of off-label use. We never tire ofpointing out that off-label use is 100% legal under the FDCA, and that the FDA cannot prevent physicians from prescribing FDA-approved drugs (which include opioids) for any therapeutically appropriate treatment, whether or not that indication appears on a drug’s FDA-approved labeling. As the Supreme Court has held, “‘off-label’ usage . . . is an accepted and necessary corollary of the FDA’s mission to regulate in this area without directly interfering with the practice of medicine.” Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 350 (2001) (citing Beck & Azari, FDA, Off-Label Use, & Informed Consent: Debunking Myths and Misconceptions, 53 Food & Drug L.J. 71, 76-77 (1998)) – yes, that Beck, as in Bexis.
So who can restrict the rights of physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label uses? That would be the states, in their traditional roles of regulators of medical practice.
It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its borders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state’s police power. The state’s discretion in that field extends naturally to the regulation of all professions concerned with health.
Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 449 (1954).
We recognize that the States have a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their boundaries, and that as part of their power to protect the public health, safety, and other valid interests they have broad power to establish standards for licensing practitioners and regulating the practice of professions.
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 (1975).
“The State, in the performance of its duty to protect and preserve the public health, has the power, within constitutional limitations, to regulate the practice of medicine by those engaged therein.” Comm’n on Medical Discipline v. Stillman, 435 A.2d 747, 755 (Md. 1981). “[P]rofessional licensing and regulation is a traditional area of state power.” Edinboro College Park Apartments v. Edinboro University Foundation, 850 F.3d 567, 577 n.9 (3d Cir. 2017). “It is well established that a state can legitimately impose broad regulations on the practice of medicine through its police powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.” People v. Rogers, 641 N.W.2d 595, 605 (Mich. App. 2001). “States retain the police power to regulate professions, such as the practice of medicine.” Betancur v. Florida, 296 F. Appx. 761, 763 (11th Cir. 2008). The “the valid police power the legislature exercise[s] when it regulate[s] the practice of medicine” is widely recognized. State v. Pacific Health Center, Inc., 143 P.3d 618, 626 (Wash. App. 2006).
These general propositions apply to controlled substances, such as opioids. “[E]nforcement of the Controlled Substances Act to prevent illegal or illegitimate drug trafficking by registered medical professionals does not intrude upon the states’ ability to regulate the practice of medicine in accordance with their police powers.” United States v. Brickhouse, 2016 WL 2654359, at *7 (Mag. E.D. Tenn. March 30, 2016), adopted, 2016 WL 2350137 (E.D. Tenn. May 4, 2016). They also apply to off-label use. “[R]egulation of the practice of medicine generally lies within the States’ police powers.” United States v. Kaplan, 2014 WL 4402586, at *4 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2014) (off-label use case).
However, except for unusual forays such as informed consent relating to diet drugs (Utah), performance enhancing drugs in sports (Ohio, and probably others), and constitutionally questionable attempts to harass those seeking drug-induced abortions by prohibiting an off-label use that’s actually safer than the outmoded FDA-indicated use, see Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region, 911 N.E.2d 871, 878 (Ohio 2009) (affirming such a provision), the states have generally not regulated medical practice and off-label uses.
In general, that’s a very good thing.
But if the states are now going to sue drug manufacturers, wholesalers, and others in the chain of sale over what are legal, FDA-approved drugs properly prescribed by state-licensed medical doctors, and properly filled by state-licensed pharmacists, then the states should be required to look in the mirror. And if counties and other municipalities that are creatures of the states are going to sue over off-label uses that their sovereign states have not seen fit to prohibit, they may find themselves preempted from doing so – by state law.
States could ban precisely the off-label uses they are complaining about, but they haven’t.
Off-label use of prescription opioids (assuming the requirements set by FDA REMS and federal controlled substances regulations are complied with) is by and large perfectly legal under state law. If the states believe that the risks of particular off-label uses outweigh the benefits, then they have the power to act to prohibit such uses outright. Where the FDA has actually approved an indication, the result would be different – federal preemption would prevent such action. But off-label use is state rather than federally regulated. We thus believe that, for states to sue to recover, say, the costs off-label opioid prescriptions, without having exercised their own authority to prevent the underlying conduct, at minimum runs squarely into the defense of failure to mitigate damages.
So the question is, how much is that argument worth? That depends on how much opioid use is off label. We’ll take a look at that question.
It appears the argument might be worth quite a bit. A New England Journal of Medicine article from earlier this year asserts that “the risk-benefit profile of opioids used for chronic pain remains unknown” with “no studies lasting longer than 1 year that evaluated pain, function, or quality of life as a primary outcome.” Assuming the statement is accurate, it suggests to us that long-term opioid use doesn’t have the level of scientific evidence behind it needed to obtain FDA approval, since “[g]enerally, the agency expects that the drug maker will submit results from two well-designed clinical trials” before approval can be granted.” Another recent article states:
The FDA doesn’t have the statutory ability to limit the amount of pills or the duration of prescriptions. However, the agency could deem prescriptions off-label if they’re too large.
Likewise, the FDA believes that “[m]ost analgesic use in pediatric patients is off-label.” So that’s a second category of opioid prescription that could be off-label and thus regulated by states, rather than by the FDA.
Another place to look is for judicial admissions. Most complaints (to hype plaintiffs’ damages) can be expected also to allege widespread off-label use, and thus conduct that the relevant state could have regulated, but hasn’t. In the litigation context, it fits in with a possible narrative against state AG or parens patriae suits – that the plaintiff state, which has legal authority, has done nothing to curb off-label opioid prescriptions, while the FDA, which lacks this authority, has at least tried.
The DEA also appears to have stepped up scrutiny of at least some off-label opioid prescribing, according to this recent (11/9/17) alert from the Academy of Integrative Pain Management:
The Drug Enforcement Administration has recently taken criminal and administrative action against physicians who prescribe transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (TIRF) off-label for the treatment of breakthrough pain. Historically, prescribing medications off-label has been a decision left to the discretion of the prescriber based on the specific needs of the patient; therefore, physicians prescribing these products off-label for noncancer breakthrough pain should be aware of this increased scrutiny.
An editorial in the National Review addressed part of this equation, stating “opioids are harmful primarily when they are not used as directed, are cleared for sale by the federal government, and come with government-approved warning labels explaining the risks — all factors that will make judges skeptical of suits” by states. But it’s even worse than that, since the states are suing, at least in significant part, over the consequences of their own governmental sloth. Perhaps, having utterly failed to hold up their end, either legislatively or by regulation, a state should be estopped from trying to recover from drug companies for legal activities.
Thus, while we strongly support the right of physicians to prescribe off-label, and the right of everyone – including drug manufacturers – to provide truthful information about off-label uses, we recognize that off-label prescribing is ultimately subject to the police power of the states. If a state has come to the conclusion that a particular off-label use is doing more harm than good, it has the legal authority (within constitutional parameters) to prohibit that use. Unless and until a state does so, however, it should not engage in the hypocritical practice of suing over a legal medical practice that it could have stopped but has chosen not to.
Thus, to the extent that the “opioid epidemic” is an off-label use issue, in that respect it is a problem created largely by the failure of the states to utilize their existing police powers.
-
Case to Watch: Panel to consider creating opioid MDL
Nov 27, 2017 | Reuters
By Nate Raymond
Lawyers representing local governments in lawsuits against drug manufacturers and distributors for their roles in the opioid epidemic will appear before a federal panel in St. Louis on Thursday to argue that the cases should be heard before a single judge.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled to take up a motion by lawyers for counties and cities in at least 46 opioid-related lawsuits seeking to consolidate the growing body of litigation.
The remainder of this article is under paywall at: bit.ly/2k4XpbQ
-
Opioid lawsuit: Reno lawyer makes bid for the case if city sues
Nov 27, 2017 | Reno Gazette Journal
By Anjeanette Damon
Reno lawyer Bill Bradley is making a play for the city of Reno's business if it decides to sue opioid manufacturers to recoup money the city has spent addressing the addiction crisis.
In partnership with the Las Vegas law firm Eglet Prince, Bradley is also approaching the Washoe County Commission and Sparks City Council.
He's trying to make the case that his firm, Bradley, Drendel & Jeanney, is better equipped to handle the litigation than Las Vegas lawyer Peter Wetherall, who originally pitched the city on the idea of suing the pain pill manufacturers earlier this month.
Bradley, who helms the state's oldest personal injury law firm, is making the argument that local is better.
"We think it is very important that local lawyers who employ local citizens are managing this lawsuit," Bradley said.
More: Schieve wants to sue opioid makers, but it could undermine the state investigation
Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve first met with Wetherall in Las Vegas and invited him to make a presentation to the full council earlier this month. She's been intensely troubled by the scourge the opioid epidemic has had on the community and believes a lawsuit could be a step in helping to combat it.
Her effort won her a rebuke from Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, whose office has joined a multi-state investigation into deceptive trade practice violations against opioid manufacturers and distributors. Laxalt warned the city that its efforts could undermine the state's investigation and potentially cause Nevada to lose out on any settlement proceeds.
He said a "unified front" is necessary to combat the opioid crisis.
Schieve remains undeterred, however. In response to Laxalt, Schieve said: "A 'unified front' and a multi-pronged attack are not mutually exclusively."
Bradley agrees that local government lawsuits could complement the state's effort.
"We are not sure what they are trying to recover on behalf of the cities, counties and state and we are not sure if their goal is recovering all of the taxpayer money that the city has spent," Bradley said of the attorney general's investigation.
Bradley sent letters to the mayor and each of the council members asking for the city's business. Bradley said the two firms would charge the city 25 percent of any settlement they win against the drug companies.
"Moreover, Bradley, Drendel & Jeanney and Eglet Prince will front all costs and risk related to the opioid litigation until we achieve a settlement," Bradley wrote. "The city will not be responsible for any out-of-pocket costs associated with the litigation."
Wetherall was not specific about the contingency fee he would charge, but made a similar promise that the city wouldn't be responsible for any litigation costs. He also said he would need to partner with a larger firm that has the resources to pursue the litigation, which would also require a percentage of the settlement.
-
Nov 28, 2017 | N12WC (News 12)
By New York, NY
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/31011426?token=04e8b4d3-9592-433d-bcb9-fe6fbad242be
Rough Transcript: putnam county has joined the growing legal case against drug companies associated with the opioid crisis. county executive maryellen odell, announced that putnam will join other counties in suing pharmaceutical companies. the lawsuit claims the companies created a nationwide opioidepidemic through fraudulent marketing and distribution of pain medications. some of the companies include: purdue pharmaceuticals, teva pharmaceutical industries, inc., and johnson and johnson.
-
Nov 28, 2017 | WICZ (FOX)
By Binghamton, NY
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/31011530?token=04e8b4d3-9592-433d-bcb9-fe6fbad242be
Rough Transcript: steuben county is joing the list of nearly 20 counties across new york working together to hold those accountable for the opioid epidemic... county legislators agreed to join a class action lawsuit to sue manufacturers and major prescribers responsible. the county manager says 16 residents died from an opioid overdose in 2016. and this year, the numbers are higher than ever before. "it's a scourge on our communities and we've been recieving calls from the public, 'how can t conty get involvd in thisho can the couny help?' one of the ways that the county can help is try to hold some of the folks accountable for creating this situation." the county manager says their next step is to work with a law firm and other counties.
-
Channel 2 Action News at 4:00PM
Nov 27, 2017 | WSB (ABC)
By Atlanta, GA
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/31011553?token=04e8b4d3-9592-433d-bcb9-fe6fbad242be
Rough Transcript: another georgia county is planning to join a legal battle in the opioid epidemic. they are hiring a new york- based law firm. they are considering court action against manufacturers and distributors of opioid pain medication. this is to get back money being spent in the fight against the opioidepidemic. two law firms have been retained including one in atlanta. they are suing 12 manufacturers and distributors of opioid medications. they say this could mean more money for anti-addiction clinics.
-
Nov 27, 2017 | WSOC (ABC)
By Charlotte, NC
Video Link: http://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/31011560?token=04e8b4d3-9592-433d-bcb9-fe6fbad242be
Rough Transcript: a source tells channel 9 mecklenburg county is considering taking legal action because of the opioid crisis. we were the 1st to break this on twitter. the commissioners voted in a closed session this month to explore the idea of suing drug manufacturers or drug companies. the county staff will come back with a recommendation in the coming weeks.
Putnam County, NY
Other Litigation Coverage
Commentary and FYIs
Broadcast Media Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested