State Of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Mike Hunter v. Johnson & Johnson

499 P.3d 719 (2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

An opioid drug epidemic exists in the United States. Oklahoma has experienced thousands of opioid-related deaths in the past two decades. Improper use of prescription opioids led to many of these deaths; few deaths occurred when individuals used pharmaceutical opioids as prescribed. We also cannot disregard that chronic pain affects millions of Americans. It is a persistent and costly health condition, and opioids are currently a vital treatment option for pain. The FDA has endorsed properly managed medical use of opioids as safe, effective pain management, and rarely addictive. The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General (P), sued three prescription opioid manufacturers and requested that the district court hold opioid manufacturers liable for violating Oklahoma's public nuisance statute. P presented evidence that D used branded and unbranded marketing, which actively promoted the concept that physicians were undertreating pain. P argued that D overstated the benefits of opioid use, downplayed the dangers, and failed to disclose the lack of evidence supporting long-term use in the interest of increasing D's profits. D no longer promotes any prescription opioids and has not done so for several years. P sued three opioid manufacturers--D, Purdue Pharma L.P., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. P settled with all but D. The district court conducted a 33-day bench trial over whether D was responsible for creating a public nuisance in the marketing and selling of its opioid products. The court held D liable under Oklahoma's public nuisance statute for conducting 'false, misleading, and dangerous marketing campaigns' about prescription opioids. It ordered that D 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. D appealed. P cross-appealed contending that D should be responsible to pay for 20 years of the State's Abatement Plan or approximately $9.3 billion to fund government programs.