I anticipated that this ruling would be appealed – mostly because the judge on this case made the decision that the trial would be a “bench trial” …meaning that J&J could not have a jury…the judge was going to judge-jury- executioner. It would seem that J&J was not being provided to have a trial and judged by a jury of their peers… Since this was a Pharma – acting as a wholesaler to the entire pharma providing raw opiate powders. Maybe there was no way to find a jury of J&J peers ?
After that trial that awarded 7 million to the family/estate to the chronic pain pt committed suicide because of prescriber cutting his dose by 55 %. Then there is this https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-11-02/judge-rules-favor-drugmakers-california-opioid-crisis-lawsuit
Would appear to be a definite shift in the “mindset” of many parts of our bureaucracies and judicial systems – away from the idea that we have a real opiate crisis and who – if even one or more entities – is the cause behind it
The ruling of the OK Supreme Court would suggest that the various bureaucracies and law firms behind this law suit tried a VERY LARGE OVER REACH on both the law and the intent of the public nuisance law. Since the law firm(s) involved with this lawsuit were probably working on a contingency fee basis and figured that they would go down the same path as the Tobacco law suit back in the end of the 20th century…. going forward, law firms may have second thoughts about filing more of these sort of lawsuits on a contingency basis, because outcomes have become a lot less predictable.
Opioid public nuisance ruling reversed by Oklahoma Supreme Court on
appeal by drug makers
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has reversed a trial court decision ruling that opioid drugmakers created a public nuisance in the state.
According to the ruling published early Tuesday, the state had counter-appealed when opioid manufacturers filed an appeal after a $465 million verdict from Judge Thad Balkman.
“We hold the opioid manufacturer’s actions did not create a public nuisance. The district court erred in extending the public nuisance statute to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of prescription opioids,” the ruling states.
“In reaching this decision, we do not to minimize the severity of the harm that thousands of Oklahoma citizens have suffered because of opioids. However grave the problem of opioid addiction is in Oklahoma, public nuisance law does not provide a remedy for this harm.”
Among named plaintiffs were Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals.
“The district court held J&J liable under Oklahoma’s public nuisance statute for conducting ‘false, misleading, and dangerous marketing campaigns’ about prescription of opioids,” the ruling by the state Supreme Court reads. “The district court ordered that J&J pay $465 million to fund one year of the State’s Abatement Plan, which consisted of the district court appropriating money to 21 government programs for services to combat opioid abuse. The amount of the judgment against J&J was not based on J&J’s percentage of prescription opioids sold. The district court also did not take into consideration or grant J&J a set-off for the settlements the state had entered into with the other opioid manufacturers.
Filed under: General Problems
Oh sure. Good for OK Supreme Court. They are right. I watched the whole ‘trial’. It was a set up from letter one… Even without a jury, J&J proved it’s case. These DOJ/AG thieves WILL choke on the money they stole. Almost feel sorry for them… I hope this soon helps the LEGITIMATE, ABANDONED, INCURABLE SEVERE PAIN SUFFERER very soon…