Judge Thad Balkman speaks duringOklahoma's case blaming consumer products giant Johnson &Johnson and its subsidiaries for the state's opioid drug crisis, inNorman, Oklahoma, in July. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki,File)
An Oklahoma judge has ordered that Johnson & Johnson paymore than $572 million to abate the state's opioid crisis.
|The bench verdict, announced by Cleveland County District CourtJudge Thad Balkman on Monday, comes in the first trial against anopioid company. Oklahoma had asked for a $17.5 billion abatementplan over 30 years, alleging that Johnson & Johnson's JanssenPharmaceuticals, as the sole defendant, created a public nuisancewhen it oversupplied opiate pharmaceuticals in the state, leadingto massive deaths and addictions.
|"The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma. It must beabated immediately," Balkman told a crowded courtroom, according tocoverage by Courtroom View Network.
|He entered a 42-page judgment against Johnson & Johnson andJanssen.
|"The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and a menace toOklahomans," he added. "My judgment includes findings of fact andconclusions of law that the state met its burden that thedefendants, Janssen and Johnson & Johnson's misleadingmarketing and promotion of opioids created a nuisance."
|Specifically he said, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen createda nuisance that caused an increased rate of addictions, overdosedeaths and addicted babies in Oklahoma.
|Johnson & Johnson said it plans to appeal.
|"Janssen did not cause the opioid crisis in Oklahoma, andneither the facts nor the law support this outcome," said MichaelUllmann, general counsel of Johnson & Johnson. "We recognizethe opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue andwe have deep sympathy for everyone affected. We are working withpartners to find ways to help those in need."
|Lawyers suing opioid manufacturers and distributors, in bothstate and federal courts across the country, closely watched thetrial. An Oct. 21 trial would be the first in the multidistrictlitigation before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, in Cleveland,which now encompasses nearly 2,000 cases, primarilybrought by cities and counties, over the opioid crisis.
|In its statement, Johnson & Johnson said the decision wouldhave little impact on the upcoming trial in the multidistrictlitigation, which names 21 other defendants and additional claimsother than public nuisance. "The Company remains open to viableoptions to resolve these cases, including through settlement," thecompany said in a press release on Monday.
|Lead plaintiffs' attorneys in the multidistrict litigation—PaulFarrell of Greene, Ketchum, Farrell, Bailey & Tweel; Paul Hanlyof Simmons Hanly Conroy; and Joseph Rice of Motley Rice—said thedecision would strengthen the claims of their clients, includingthe two Ohio counties preparing for the upcoming trial.
|"Today's ruling holding Johnson & Johnson liable forOklahoma's opioid epidemic serves as another milestone amid themounting evidence against the opioid pharmaceutical industry who weallege started, fueled, and conspired to create the largest publichealth crisis of our time," they wrote. "The ruling in favor of theState of Oklahoma's public nuisance claims confirms whatcommunities have been saying for some time: The opioid epidemicsignificantly interfered with public health. While public nuisancelaws differ in every state, this decision is a critical stepforward for the more than 2,000 cities, counties, and towns werepresent in the consolidation of federal opioid cases."
|Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce'sInstitute for Legal Reform, said that if an appeals court did notreverse the decision, "almost any industry could be the target oflarge-scale litigation."
|"Today's decision is based on questionable legal claims from anill-conceived lawsuit that will do little to solve Oklahoma'sopioid crisis," she said in a statement. "No one deniesthe magnitude of the opioid problem in Oklahoma, but lettingprivate lawyers distort the scarcely-used public nuisance theory inhopes of getting a massive settlement isn't the solution."
|Jennifer Braceras, director of the Independent Women's Forum'sCenter for Law & Liberty, also said the decision willnot do much to solve the opioid crisis. "Theverdict is a victory for taxation by litigation, but it isconsumers who will pay the price in the form of higher prices andreduced access to pain medications for patients who need them," shesaid in a statement.
|American Tort Reform Association President Tiger Joyce notedthat Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, a Republican,had joined with 17 other states, in a May 17 amicus brief beforethe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in opposing theuse of public nuisance law to pursue claims over climatechange.
|"AG Mike Hunter's use of public nuisance law and the judge'sdecision 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 vulnerableto public nuisance law's applicability to them with regard toissues like climate change as the state looks for additionalfunding sources to manage public crises."
|The Oklahoma case initially named Purdue Pharma and TevaPharmaceuticals, along with Janssen. Purdue settledout of the case in March for $270 million. One daybefore trial, Teva agreedto pay $85 million, leaving Johnson & Johnson as the onlydefendant at trial.
|At the trial, which began May 28 in Norman, Oklahoma, lawyers forthe state of Oklahoma argued that Johnson & Johnson'saggressive marketing of its opioids led doctors and hospital staff,and others, to believe the painkillers were not addictive and couldbe appropriate for pain treatment in the long term. JoiningAttorney General Mike Hunter at trial were Brad Beckworth, apartner at Nix Patterson in Austin, Texas, and Michael Burrage andReggie Whitten, co-founders of Whitten Burrage in OklahomaCity.
|Johnson & Johnson's lawyers brought up rampant misuse of itsprescription painkillers, which the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration has approved. Their products also come with warningsconcerning—one of several factors influencing decisions by doctorsto prescribe opiate painkillers. Larry Ottaway of Oklahoma City'sFoliart Huff Ottaway & Bottom, represented Johnson &Johnson.
|Read more:
Complete your profile to continue reading and get FREE access to BenefitsPRO, part of your ALM digital membership.
Your access to unlimited BenefitsPRO content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Critical BenefitsPRO information including cutting edge post-reform success strategies, access to educational webcasts and videos, resources from industry leaders, and informative Newsletters.
- Exclusive discounts on ALM, BenefitsPRO magazine and BenefitsPRO.com events
- Access to other award-winning ALM websites including ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com
Already have an account? Sign In
© 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.
Amanda Bronstad
Amanda Bronstad is the ALM staff reporter covering class actions and mass torts nationwide. She writes the email dispatch Law.com Class Actions: Critical Mass. She is based in Los Angeles.
