Litigation History
Courts have repeatedly rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that Purdue Pharma – and other opioid companies across the entire supply chain – are liable for opioid-related claims.
Federal & State Courts Have Determined Purdue Pharma Is Not Liable for OxyContin-Related Civil Claims
2019
State of North Dakota v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
“Holding Purdue solely responsible for the entire opioid epidemic in North Dakota is difficult to comprehend, especially given Purdue’s small share of the overall market for lawful opioids. It is also difficult to comprehend given the large market for unlawful opioids.”
“… Purdue has absolutely no control over how patients choose to use the drug.”
“These are not Purdue’s acts or misrepresentations, yet the State seeks to hold Purdue solely liable. The State’s effort to hold one company to account for this entire, complex public health issue oversimplifies the problem.”
[Case No. 08-2018-CV-01300 (May 10, 2019)]
2019
City of New Haven v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
“[Clourts can’t credibly consider cases derived from harms allegedly connected to defendants by lengthy, multifaceted chains of causation that must weigh their conduct while trying to separate that conduct from the myriad of independent factors that make up most broadly defined social crises like… opioid abuse.”
“Our Supreme Court has long ruled claims like these impermissible. In legal parlance, it has held that the indirectly harmed have no standing to sue, and that the courts may not hear, but instead must dismiss, these claims.”
[2019 WL 423990 at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 8, 2019)]
2008
Boysaw v. Purdue Pharma
No proof of causation against Purdue Pharma because the patient was taking multiple opioids in addition to OxyContin.
[2008 WL 4452650 (W.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2008) Aff’d 320 F. App’x 178 (4th Cir. 2009)
2007
Bodie v. Purdue Pharma Co.
No proof of causation under the “learned intermediary” doctrine where the patient’s doctor testified he was aware of the risks of opioids, and his prescribing decision was not affected by Purdue Pharma’s promotional literature.
“The evidence suggests, however, that OxyContin was, in fact, fit for its use as an analgesic treatment for chronic pain …’
[236 F. App’x 51 (1 Cir. 2007)]
2006
Koenig v. Purdue Pharma Co.
Plaintiff failed to show that OxyContin marketing caused doctors to prescribe the drug to him.
[435 F.Supp.2d 551 (N.D. Tex. 2006)]
2006
Timmons v. Purdue Pharma Co.
No causation where prescribers were aware of risks and were not influenced by Purdue Pharma marketing.
“Even if OxyContin were considered unreasonably dangerous, which it has not been deemed so, Plaintiff has failed to show any evidence of causation.”
[2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3965 (M.D. Fla. Feb 6, 2006)]
2004
McCauley v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
“There is simply no evidence in the present record showing that OxyContin was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries or that no other party was responsible for the plaintiffs’ injuries, and the facts of the case do not permit such inferences.”
“Based on the evidence produced, no reasonable juror could find that OxyContin was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries ….”
[331 F.Supp.2d 449 (W.D. Va. 2004)]
2003
Foister v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
“The plaintiffs have presented no proof to suggest that the drug would have been unreasonably dangerous absent this illegal alteration. Indeed, the drug’s FDA approval indicates that OxyContin is reasonably safe when used as directed.”
“The proximate cause of any alleged injury in such circumstances is the alteration and/or abuse of the drug, not the drug itself.”
“… OxyContin’s insert clearly set forth the potential dangers of the drug and the best manner in which to minimize those dangers.”
[295 F. Supp.2d 693 (E.D. Ky. 2003)]
2003
Labzda v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
“…foreseeable voluntary abuse of a non-defective product … results in the legal conclusion that the proximate cause of the injury to the consumer was his voluntary abuse; the manufacturer of the substance is not liable for the injury to the user.”
“… [the patient] was repeatedly warned about the dangers of misusing OxyContin and intentionally, rather than negligently, misused the product by crushing and inhaling it.”
[292 F.Supp.2d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2003)]
2003
Harris v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
“… the first and third of Plaintiffs’ three ‘central legal theories’ turn on failure to warn or negligent promotion, theories that crumble in the face of the fact that the drug is clearly labeled ‘Warning: May be Habit-Forming’ and features the symbol ‘CIl’ advising physicians that the drug is a schedule Il controlled substance.”
[218 F.R.D. 590 (SD. . Ohio 2003)]
2001
Foister v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
“The plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence showing that the defendants’ marketing, promotional, or distribution practices have ever caused even one tablet of OxyContin to be inappropriately prescribed or diverted.”
[2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Ky. 2001)]
Courts Reject “Public Nuisance” & Other Claims Across Entire Opioid Supply Chain
Plaintiffs have argued on multiple occasions opioid companies have caused a “public nuisance.” Courts across the country have repeatedly rejected these and other arguments.
“Such lawsuits could be leveled not merely against these defendants, but, well beyond them, against countless other types of commercial enterprises, in order to address a myriad of societal problems — real, perceived or imagined — regardless of the distance between the ‘causes’ of the ‘problems’ and their alleged consequences.”
Laura Flahive Wu and Nicole Antoine, Covington & Burling LLP[1]
April 2024
Alaska Judge Tosses Opioid Nuisance Case Against Pharmacies
Judge Una Gandbhir on Monday issued a final judgment following her decision from March rejecting the state’s claims that the pharmacies committed a public nuisance and can be held liable for the opioid epidemic.
“The court must agree with defendants that plaintiff’s argument, though emotionally compelling and clearly intended for the benefit of Alaskans, is a bridge too far,” Judge Gandbhir wrote in her March 4 opinion. “Taken to its logical conclusion, any claim that has negative impacts on public health could be defined as a public nuisance.”
April 2, 2024[2]
March 2023
Opioid Distributors Cleared of Liability to Georgia Families Ravaged by Addiction
After deliberating barely a day and a half, the jury found that the companies — two of the country’s largest medical distributors, McKesson and Cardinal Health, and a third regional one — were not liable. The plaintiffs — 21 relatives from six families — had filed suit under a rarely used state law that permits relatives of people addicted to drugs to sue drug dealers.
March 1, 2023[3]
February 2023
Judge Dismisses Maine Hospitals’ Opioid Lawsuit Against Drug Companies
Business and Consumer Court Judge Michael Duddy ruled in favor of dismissal, saying Northern Light Health was not directly damaged by opioid manufacturers and sales representatives
Among those listed as defendants in the 2021 lawsuit were Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Watson Laboratories, Actavis Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and Endo Pharmaceuticals and pharmacy chains CVS, Rite Aid of Maine, Eckerd Corp., and Walmart.
February 15, 2023[4]
july 2022
West Virginia Judge Rules Opioid Manufacturers Did Not Cause Public Nuisance
“The judge said conduct by the distributors—McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen Corp. and Cardinal Health Inc.—couldn’t be deemed a public nuisance under the law because the plaintiffs didn’t prove their actions caused the opioid crisis. He said overprescribing by doctors, dispensing of excessive prescriptions by pharmacists and diversion of the drugs to illegal usage were all ‘intervening causes beyond the control of defendants.’”
July 5, 2022[5]
November 2021
Oklahoma Supreme Court Reverses Judgment Against Johnson & Johnson
“The issue before this Court is whether the district court correctly determined that J&J’s actions in marketing and selling prescription opioids created a public nuisance. We hold it did not.”
“We follow North Dakota and South Dakota courts who rejected public nuisance claims against the same defendants for the same conduct as complained of in this case...”
STate of Oklahoma, November 9, 2021[6]
November 2021
California Rules Drug Manufacturers Did Not Cause Public Nuisance
“Specifically, the Court finds that even if any of the marketing which caused an increase in the number, dose or duration of opioid prescriptions did include false or misleading marketing, any adverse downstream consequences flowing from medically appropriate prescriptions cannot constitute an actionable public nuisance.”
Superior Court of California, County of Orange, November 1, 2021[7]
May 2019
North Dakota Dismisses Suit Against Purdue Pharma
“Holding Purdue solely responsible for the entire opioid epidemic in North Dakota is difficult to comprehend, especially given Purdue’s small share of the overall market for lawful opioids. It is also difficult to comprehend given the large market for unlawful opioids.”
“The reality is that Purdue has no control over its product after it is sold to distributors, then to pharmacies, and then prescribed to consumers, i.e. after it enters the market. Purdue cannot control how doctors prescribe its products and it certainly cannot control how individual patients use and respond to its products, regardless of any warning or instruction Purdue may give…”
State of North Dakota, May 10, 2019[8]
February 2019
Delaware Attorney General Rules Purdue Pharma & Others Did Not Cause Public Nuisance
“The State has failed to allege a public right with which Defendants have interfered. A defendant is not liable for public nuisance unless it exercises control over the instrumentality that caused the nuisance at the time of the nuisance. The State has failed to allege control by Defendants over the instrumentality of the nuisance at the time of the nuisance. Thus, all Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the nuisance claims must be granted.”
State of Delaware, February 4, 2019[9]
January 2019
New Haven, Connecticut Dismisses Lawsuits Against Drug Companies, Including Purdue
“The drug companies ask the court to dismiss these cases because they claim indirect damages that would turn on conjectural analysis of cause and effects. Because the companies are right, the court must accede to their request.”
City of New Haven, CT, January 9, 2019[10]