Johnson & Johnson opioid trial judge to issue historic verdict

A judge from Oklahoma is expected to make a historic decision Monday on whether Johnson & Johnson will be held accountable for the opioid epidemic in the state, which would have done more than 6,000 dead in almost two decades.

The Attorney General of Oklahoma claims that J & J and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals have been aggressively marketed to physicians and have minimized the risks associated with opioids from the 1990s. The company's sales practices have created an overabundance of addictive painkillers and a "public nuisance" that have disrupted lives and will cost between $ 12.7 billion and $ 17.5 billion in the state, the state announced.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter urges Judge Thad Balkman of Cleveland District to force J & J to pay over $ 17 billion in the first US civil lawsuit seeking a drug maker to provide help to fuel the epidemic. The $ 17 billion – to be used as part of a 30-year reduction plan – would fund drug treatment and prevention programs in the state, officials said.

J & J has denied any wrongdoing and always has the opportunity to settle the matter amicably before the judge renders his decision.

The company, which commercialized the opioid analgesics Duragesic and Nucynta, said that its products were highly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, among other agencies, and that the state had not provided any evidence showing that its business practices contributed to fueling the crisis.

J & J was the only accused in the seven-week trial, which was broadcast live and began May 28. Purdue Pharma, the private manufacturer of OxyContin that has borne the brunt of the opioid epidemic's responsibility nationwide, has reached a $ 270 million settlement with the office Attorney General of Oklahoma in March. Oklahoma also settled its claims against Teva Pharmaceutical for $ 85 million before trial in Cleveland County. Both companies denied any wrongdoing.

Johnson & Johnson's attorney, John Sparks, challenged the legal basis used by Oklahoma to sue J & J, relying on a "public nuisance" complaint. Sparks said that the state had previously limited the law to disputes over property or public spaces.

"The state ignores this well-established law and now argues that public nuisances allow them to coerce any party that would, in any way, contribute to a social problem to fund all programs that state administrators dream of. The law is not and should not be the case, "he said in a statement.

A decision against J & J on Monday could mean more big payouts in similar cases across the country.

Legal analysts have found the Oklahoma trial to be a litmus test for plaintiffs in some 1,900 cases pending against Purdue Pharma, J & J and other opioid manufacturers, who have were regrouped and transferred to a federal judge of the Northern District of Ohio. Lawyers compared the huge opioid litigation to the tobacco framework agreement in the 1990s, when the country's four largest tobacco companies entered into a group agreement with 46 state attorneys general. State.

Excluding a settlement in the opioid case – drug manufacturers Endo International and Allergan have agreed to pay $ 15 million in total to avoid being brought to justice – the consolidated lawsuit is scheduled to begin in October.

During debates in Oklahoma, Hunter said J & J and others were eager to produce a "magic pill" in their quest for profits, while ignoring decades of scientific research showing the dangers of opioids . Balkman heard the testimony of victims of the crisis, including the father of a university footballer who died as a result of an overdose.

They "embarked on a multi-billion dollar, cynical, deceptive, brainwashing campaign to establish opioid painkillers as a magic drug," Hunter told the court. "Money may not be the root of all ills, but … money can cause people and businesses to do bad things." "Very bad things."

J & J testified in court that his marketing and promotion of pain medication was "appropriate and responsible". The company presented testimonials from doctors and former and former employees who said its marketing practices were appropriate.