Oklahoma Supreme Court Lets J&J Off the Hook
The decision is a blow to the argument that companies that marketed, sold and distributed opioids created a public nuisance and should abate some of the damage the drugs caused in communities.
Landwebs
In a five to one decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has reversed a historic $465 million ruling against drugmaker Johnson & Johnson, finding a judge incorrectly interpreted public nuisance laws in the nation’s first major trial over the opioid epidemic, reports the Washington Post. Public nuisance law has evolved to cover a large, miscellaneous group of offenses against the community at large — a loud party disturbing a quiet neighborhood or a factory’s foul odor enveloping a city.
The companies also scored a win last week in California when a judge said he would rule against several large counties arguing public nuisance claims because they had not proved deceptive marketing increased medically unnecessary prescriptions. Other cases hinging on similar arguments have not yet been heard or decided. The opinions could sway plaintiffs determining how to argue their cases or communities considering joining the national settlement announced in July, 2021. Johnson & Johnson agreed to contribute up to $5 billion in a $26 billion deal with the top three distributors, McKesson, Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen, to resolve thousands of opioid claims. At least eight states have rejected a deal with J&J. “In reaching this decision, we do not minimize the severity of the harm that thousands of Oklahoma citizens have suffered because of opioids,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court judges wrote in their ruling. “However grave the problem of opioid addiction is in Oklahoma, public nuisance law does not provide a remedy for this harm.”
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24430706/elon_musk_twitter_for_you.png)
