Get 40% Off
🚨 Volatile Markets? Find Hidden Gems for Serious OutperformanceFind Stocks Now

California judge questions counties' opioid case against drugmakers at trial's end

Published 09/30/2021, 05:21 PM
Updated 09/30/2021, 05:26 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Fidelma Fitzpatrick, a lawyer for several large California counties at the law firm Motley Rice, presents her opening statement at the start of a non-jury trial being conducted by Zoom in Orange County Superior Court in a lawsuit accusing four

By Nate Raymond

(Reuters) -A California judge on Thursday said several large counties accusing four drugmakers of fueling an opioid epidemic had presented a "dearth of evidence" during a multi-billion dollar trial to support finding the companies' pain pill marketing caused the health crisis.

Judge Peter Wilson sharply questioned the counties' lawyer during closing arguments about what evidence would support finding Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (NYSE:TEVA) Ltd, Endo International (NASDAQ:ENDP) PLC and AbbVie Inc (NYSE:ABBV)'s Allergan (NYSE:AGN) unit liable for the epidemic.

Fidelma Fitzpatrick, a lawyer for the populous Santa Clara, Los Angeles and Orange counties and the city of Oakland, argued the drugmakers' marketing downplayed opioids' addictive risks and promoted them for broader uses than intended.

That advertising led to billions of pain pills flooding their communities over 20 years and an ongoing rise in opioid overdose deaths, Fitzpatrick said in her closing argument.

"Those promotional activities worked," she said.

But Wilson, the Orange County Superior Court judge presiding over the non-jury trial, said the plaintiffs lacked evidence showing the marketing caused doctors to write inappropriate, rather than appropriate, prescriptions.

Wilson said policymakers seemed to have known an increase in prescriptions of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved opioids could result in "regrettable" abuse yet accepted that as a trade-off to ensure pain was treated.

"It's the dearth of evidence by a single doctor, a single patient, a single person to say 'I changed my practices because...,' or 'I did something different because...,'" he said. "That's the inference I'm being asked to draw."

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

Michael Yoder, J&J's lawyer, agreed, saying the plaintiffs "can't start with an abstract problem and work backwards to determine if there's an actionable public nuisance."

The case is one of 3,300-plus lawsuits by largely state and local governments seeking to hold drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies responsible for an epidemic that U.S. government data shows led to nearly 500,000 opioid overdose deaths from 1999 to 2019.

The closing argument came after J&J and the three largest distributors- McKesson Corp (NYSE:MCK), Cardinal Health Inc (NYSE:CAH) and AmersourceBergen -in July agreed to pay up to $26 billion to settle cases against them.

The California counties, though, are not part of the proposed settlement with J&J and have pressed ahead with their case.

Should Wilson find the drugmakers liable, the counties say they should have to pay more than $50 billion to cover the costs of abating the public nuisance they created, plus penalties.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.