Opioid Crisis: Court Revives Big Lawsuit Against Drug Companies

A recent decision by a U.S. appeals court has brought back a massive lawsuit against major drug distributors. The case, worth $2.5 billion, accuses these companies of playing a role in the opioid addiction crisis in West Virginia.

Key Points of the Decision

• The court overturned a 2022 ruling that had favored the drug suppliers.
• The appeals court stated that the lower court made a mistake in concluding that Cencora, McKesson Corp, and Cardinal Health did not create a "public nuisance" by flooding pharmacies with addictive pills in Cabell County and Huntington.
• The case will now be re-examined to determine if these companies should pay for addiction treatment and prevention efforts.
• The lawsuit claims that the distributors failed to stop large, suspicious orders of opioid pills.

Reactions and Implications

• The drug companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
• Huntington Mayor Patrick Farrell expressed hope that this decision will help hold the drug distributors accountable for the harm they have caused.
• The distributors had previously agreed to pay up to $21 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits brought by state and local governments. However, West Virginia chose not to join this national settlement, opting instead to seek a larger recovery.

Lower Court vs. Appeals Court Findings

• The lower court had ruled in favor of the drug companies, stating that West Virginia's "public nuisance" law did not create liability for companies that sold prescription drugs.
• The appeals court reversed this finding, stating that the companies had not complied with their duty to report suspicious drug orders to U.S. regulators.
• The appeals court found that the drug companies repeatedly shipped opioids to pharmacies in quantities that exceeded their own thresholds for "suspicious" orders.
• For example, Cencora supplied 775 potentially suspicious orders from a single pharmacy in Cabell County over a five-year period, but only reported 16 of those orders to the DEA.

Broader Implications

This case highlights the ongoing struggle to hold drug distributors accountable for their role in the opioid crisis. It also raises questions about the effectiveness of current regulations and the responsibilities of drug companies in preventing addiction.