We at The Doctor Patient Forum talk often about the litigation narrative. What does this mean? It's what we think is their end-game. The reason they've purposely lied. It's all about money. In my opinion it's the entire purpose of the CDC Guidelines. They basically tried to come up with the next big win fashioned after their tobacco settlement. They put this in motion probably about 15 or so years ago. We will write more about this in other articles. The purpose of this article is to report on the thousands of opioid litigation cases across the country. We will keep a running list under this article of rulings of the trials, and up-to-date decisions.
Check here for the most up to date information regarding opioid litigation and settlement funds.
Connecticut Case Against Purdue
In January of 2019 Connecticut Judge dismissed opioid lawsuits against Purdue, and 24 other defendants. This ruling applied to four cases that were consolidated. "Judge Thomas Moukawsher in Connecticut ruled against 37 cities and towns within the state that brought lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies accused of fueling the opioid crisis in the U.S."
According to this article, the judge ruled "the lawsuits were not allowed because they were not filed as government actions authorized by state public interest laws."
Judge In North Dakota Tossed Out Lawsuits Against Purdue Pharma
In May of 2019, a ND judge threw out lawsuits against Purdue.
Here is a pdf of the judge's ruling.
The Attorney General mentioned he intends to appeal this decision.
Johnson and Johnson in Oklahoma
In 2019 an Oklahoma court found Johnson and Johnson guilty of fueling the opioid crisis. They were found guilty under a public nuisance lawsuit. They were to pay $572,000,000. This was the trial where Koldony and Mendell both testified. Andrew Kolodny was rumored to have been paid at least $500,000 as an "expert" witness. Interestingly, Kolodny had to revise conflict of interest statements when submitting articles for publication, because somehow he didn't think being paid in litigation was a conflict of interest. On November 9, 2021, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the ruling against J&J. This is a huge win. Here is a copy of the actual ruling by the judge. I'll pull out a quote:
"This court will not extend Oklahoma public nuisance law to the manufacturing, marketing and selling of prescription opioids...Extending public nuisance law to the manufacturing, marketing and selling of products-in this case, opioids-would allow consumers to convert almost every products liability action into public nuisance claim."
California Judge Dismisses Cases:
On November 9, 2021 a California judge dismissed cases against Endo, Teva USA, Caphalon, AbbVie, and Johnson & Johnson. Read our article explaining it in detail. We included all the information and links you need, including the judge's 42-page ruling. This was another win for the pain community. The best part about this ruling was when the judge commented specifically on Lembke's testimony:
"Dr. (Anna) Lembke testified that one in four patients prescribed opioids would become addicted. As Defendants point out, the studies relied upon by Dr. Lembke for that conclusion are inadequate to support it. The more reliable data would suggest less than 5%, rather than 25%. Under either number, addiction based solely on the patient having been prescribed opioids does not occur in "most of these patients."
Federal Jury Holds Pharmacies Responsible For Their Role in the Opioid Crisis
On November 23, 2021, A federal jury found CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart were found guilty in fueling the opioid crisis in two Ohio counties.
"It marks the first time the retail segment of the drug industry has been held accountable in the decades long opioid epidemic. The case could set a precedent for other U.S. cities and counties looking to take legal action against corporations for any role they may have played in the opioid crisis," according to this article.
This decision will be appealed, and has a good chance to be overturned according to this article.
"The companies, who vowed to appeal, may not have to work hard to make their case, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who follows the litigation. Overturning the verdict could be justified by the decision of the judge overseeing the trial to not grant a mistrial, even after a juror admitted to doing Internet research about claims against the pharmacy operators, Tobias said. Jurors are only permitted to consider evidence and arguments presented in court."
