Judge Rules Johnson & Johnson Must Pay $572M In Opioid Lawsuit, But Amount Falls Short Of Expectations

The New York Times: Johnson & Johnson Ordered To Pay $572 Million In Landmark Opioid Trial
A judge in Oklahoma on Monday ruled that Johnson & Johnson had intentionally played down the dangers and oversold the benefits of opioids, and ordered it to pay the state $572 million in the first trial of a drug manufacturer for the destruction wrought by prescription painkillers. The amount fell far short of the $17 billion judgment that Oklahoma had sought to pay for addiction treatment, drug courts and other services it said it would need over the next 20 years to repair the damage done by the opioid epidemic. (Hoffman, 8/26)

The Washington Post: Oklahoma Judge Orders Johnson & Johnson To Pay $572 Million To Fund Treatment Programs
Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman’s landmark decision is the first to hold a drugmaker culpable for the fallout of years of liberal opioid dispensing that began in the late 1990s, sparking a nationwide epidemic of overdose deaths and addiction. More than 400,000 people have died of overdoses from painkillers, heroin and illegal fentanyl since 1999. “The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma and must be abated immediately,” Balkman said, reading part of his decision aloud from the bench Monday afternoon. “As a matter of law, I find that defendants’ actions caused harm, and those harms are the kinds recognized by [state law] because those actions annoyed, injured or endangered the comfort, repose, health or safety of Oklahomans,” he wrote in the decision. (Bernstein, 8/26)

Kaiser Health News: Judge Cites Opioid ‘Menace,’ Awards Oklahoma $572M In Landmark Case
“Defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma,” Balkman said in the ruling. (Fortier and Mann, 8/26)

The Oklahoman: $572 Million Verdict Handed Down In Oklahoma Opioid Trial
Under the abatement plan detailed in the written order, most of the funding — $232,947,710 — would go toward providing assessments and comprehensive treatment and recovery services to all Oklahomans in need of them. Another $103,277,835 would go toward pain management efforts. (Ellis, 8/27)

The Wall Street Journal: Johnson & Johnson Ordered To Pay $572 Million In Oklahoma Opioid Case
The judge said in the ruling that Johnson & Johnson’s misleading marketing included unbranded campaigns jointly developed with other companies that suggested pain was undertreated and that higher amounts of opioid prescriptions were the solution. The state said the company’s actions created a “public nuisance” and asked the judge to award as much as $17 billion to abate the costs of the crisis. Analysts followed the Oklahoma trial closely for signs of what might happen in the broader opioid litigation. Attention will turn next to Cleveland, where two counties are set to go to trial in October against an array of drugmakers and distributors. (Randazzo and Hopkins, 8/26)

CNBC: Judge Rules Against Johnson & Johnson In Landmark Opioid Case In Oklahoma
Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter had claimed that J&J and its pharmaceutical subsidiary Janssen aggressively marketed to doctors and downplayed the risks of opioids as early as the 1990s. The state said J&J’s sales practices created an oversupply of the addictive painkillers and “a public nuisance” that upended lives and would cost the state $12.7 billion to $17.5 billion. The state was seeking more than $17 billion from the company. (Lovelace, 8/26)

CNN: Oklahoma Wins Case Against Drugmaker In Historic Opioid Trial
"Janssen did not cause the opioid crisis in Oklahoma, and neither the facts nor the law support this outcome," Michael Ullmann, executive vice president and general counsel for Johnson & Johnson, said in a written statement on Monday. "We recognize the opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue and we have deep sympathy for everyone affected. We are working with partners to find ways to help those in need," he said. "This judgment is a misapplication of public nuisance law that has already been rejected by judges in other states." (Howard and Drash, 8/27)

Politico: Johnson & Johnson Ordered To Pay $572M In First Opioid Case
The damages appeared to be smaller than Wall Street was expecting, as stocks of companies involved in opioid litigation spiked upward after the ruling. Wells Fargo analysts earlier said they believed Johnson & Johnson could have faced a payout of more than $2 billion in the Oklahoma lawsuit. “This is not the eye-popping result that some people expected it to be,” said Andrew Pollis, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, who has tracked the opioid litigation closely. (Demko, 8/26)

The Associated Press: Johnson & Johnson Helped Fuel Opioid Crisis In Oklahoma And Must Pay $572 Million, Judge Rules
Before Oklahoma’s trial began on May 28, the state reached settlements with two other defendant groups — a $270-million deal with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma and an $85-million settlement with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Oklahoma argued the companies and their subsidiaries created a public nuisance by launching an aggressive and misleading marketing campaign that overstated how effective the drugs were for treating chronic pain and understated the risk of addiction. Oklahoma Atty. Gen. Mike Hunter says opioid overdoses killed 4,653 people in the state from 2007 to 2017. (Murphy, 8/26)

Modern Healthcare: Johnson & Johnson Ordered To Pay $572M Over Opioid Crisis
In response to the ruling, the American Hospital Association jointly with the Oklahoma Hospital Association asked the judge to assign funds to the state's hospitals and health systems. "With additional resources, hospitals can broaden access to post-overdose treatment in emergency departments, increase training of physicians to treat substance use disorders, cover the costs of lengthy stays and follow-up care for infants with neonatal abstinence disorder, and invest in electronic health information systems to improve coordinated care and prevent overprescribing," the groups said. (Luthi, 8/26)

NPR: Oklahoma Wanted $17 Billion To Fight Its Opioid Crisis: What's The Real Cost?
The fact that the state won any money is significant — it's the first ruling to hold a pharmaceutical company responsible for the opioid crisis. But the state had asked for much more: around $17 billion. The judge found the drugmaker liable for only about 1/30 of that. "The state did not present sufficient evidence of the amount of time and costs necessary, beyond year one, to abate the opioid crisis," Judge Thad Balkman wrote in his ruling. (Simmons-Duffin, 8/26)

The New York Times: Why Was Johnson & Johnson The Only Opioid Maker On Trial In Oklahoma?
Some two dozen opioid manufacturers, drug distributors and retailers are now being sued by states, counties, cities and tribes across the nation for their roles in the opioid crisis, yet Johnson & Johnson, the corporate giant, wound up as the only company on trial in Oklahoma despite the fact that its drugs accounted for only about 1 percent of opioid sales in the state. (Hoffman, 8/26)

The Associated Press: What Lies Ahead Following Oklahoma Opioid Judgment
What's next? The first federal trial, involving claims from Ohio's Cuyahoga and Summit counties, is scheduled for Oct. 21. The Cleveland-based judge in that case, Dan Polster, intends to use that as a bellwether, providing decisions that could apply to other cases. Polster is overseeing most of the opioid cases and is pushing the parties to settle. (Mulvihill, 8/27)

Bloomberg: Oklahoma Opioid Ruling Gives ‘Green Light’ For Other Suits 
While some Johnson & Johnson investors were relieved that the company’s $572 million penalty for fueling Oklahoma’s opioid epidemic wasn’t as high as feared, lawyers for other U.S. states, cities and counties could hardly contain their glee. That’s because the ruling by Oklahoma Judge Thad Balkman on Monday was the first affirmation in court of a high-risk legal strategy using public-nuisance laws to punish predatory drug marketing. More than 45 other states and 2,000 local governments are hoping to win billions of dollars in verdicts with the same arguments. (Feeley and Griffin, 8/27)

PBS NewsHour: What Oklahoma’s Landmark Opioid Ruling Could Mean For Other States
A ruling from a judge in Oklahoma that marketing tactics used by pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson contributed to the opioid crisis could signal what’s ahead for other drug companies facing lawsuits across the country. ...Some experts say it could begin the kind of legal dismantling the tobacco industry experienced in the 1990s. (Santhanam, 8/26)

CQ: Judge Rules Against Drugmaker In Landmark Okla. Opioid Lawsuit
Effects from the nation’s shift in attitude toward opioid makers are already apparent. In June, Purdue Pharma laid off its entire sales team while fellow opioid manufacturer Insys Therapeutics filed for bankruptcy. Insys had just settled with the U.S. Department of Justice for $225 million after admitting the company bribed doctors to prescribe its potent fentanyl painkiller, Subsys. (Clason, 8/26)

PBS NewsHour: What Okla. Judgment Against Johnson & Johnson Means For Opioid Accountability
William Brangham talks to StateImpact Oklahoma’s Jackie Fortier about the case's unusual argument and broad impact. (Brangham, 8/26)

The Oklahoman: Five Key Quotes From Opioid Trial Verdict
Here are key quotes from Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman's 42-page judgment in the state's opioid case against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries. (8/27)

The Oklahoman: The read the decision here.