What You Should Know About the Johnson & Johnson Lawsuit and the Opioid Crisis
On Monday, an Oklahoma judge ordered pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson to pay $ 572 million for its involvement in the ongoing opioid crisis, a lawsuit that has been described as a ” landmark ” case. Because of this lawsuit, we may very well see other pharmaceutical companies, distributors and even large retailers claiming responsibility for the epidemic.
Just this week, another pharmaceutical company also agreed to settle at least 2,000 billion-dollar claims against them. Why are pharmaceutical companies (or at least one of them) finally being held accountable? What can we expect after the lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson?
Why is Johnson & Johnson responsible?
In short, the corporation has a responsibility to downplay the dangers of opioid addiction, exaggerate the benefits of such drugs, and use the corporation’s misleading marketing strategies.
Specifically, the state argued that Johnson & Johnson, through its subsidiaries, supplied many of the opiate ingredients to other drug manufacturers in the United States to create opioids, including oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, and fentanyl. (It’s worth noting, however, that the drug manufacturer is not a major player in the actual production of opioids; they only manufacture prescription opioid pills and fentanyl skin patches through a subsidiary.) “Low risk of abuse and low risk”, among other misleading advertising efforts.
In Oklahoma, 2,100 people died from unintentional prescription opioid overdose in Oklahoma between 2011 and 2015, according to a copy of the lawsuit (and 6,000 have died since 2000). And in 2015, 326 million opioid pills were distributed across the state. In a statement, Cleveland County Judge Tad Bulkman said the opioid crisis “has devastated Oklahoma and must be ended immediately.”
In its lawsuit, Oklahoma initially asked for $ 17.5 billion over 30 years, but Balkman argued that the state “did not provide sufficient evidence of the amount of time and cost required after the first year to mitigate the opioid crisis.” In other words, the judge ruled about 1/30 of the total $ 17.5 billion, or $ 572 million, which is equal to one year of aid.
Why is this case important?
For several reasons. First, this is the first time that a drug manufacturer has been held accountable for its role in the ongoing opioid crisis. Earlier this year, Oklahoma settled lawsuits with two other pharmaceutical companies, Purdue Pharma (Oxycontin) and Teva Pharmaceuticals, for $ 270 million and $ 85 million, respectively, but both companies denied any wrongdoing or involvement in the crisis or promoted opioid drugs. abuse. (On Tuesday, P urdue Pharma and the Sackler family, its owners, also offered to settle more than 2,000 cases against the company, although they continued to deny the allegations.)
Important is the precedent that Johnson & Johnson will create for similar cases in other states. The state used the existing “disorderly conduct” law to win the lawsuit. The law is commonly referred to in lawsuits involving disputes over public property. ( CNBC uses examples of lawsuits that could involve river pollution or loud noises in public places.)
But Oklahoma’s public disorder law is broader, and the state has applied it to address corporate issues as well. This can be cited in other states to win cases against drug manufacturers, depending on the state and how narrowly its public order law is defined.
“What happens there will become the standard for what happens after that,” Abbe R. Gluck, a professor at Yale Law School, told the Washington Post . There are at least 36 states filing cases against drug manufacturers for their role in the opioid crisis (in addition to thousands of cities, counties and Native American tribes).
What happens next?
According to NPR , government officials and lawmakers will ultimately decide how to use the money; Christopher Roome , professor of public policy at the University of Virginia and author of Oklahoma’s 30-year pollution plan, supported the proposal, which included addiction treatment services, disposal of government drugs, pain relievers, education, and more than 572 million dollars.
And, of course, Johnson & Johnson’s lawyers have already announced plans to appeal the case so that the decision can change. However, there is not much that responsible holding companies can do; more research on opioid dependence is needed, but the suit is a positive sign nonetheless. In the near future, we may well see other successful lawsuits against other large pharmaceutical companies.