Introduction
Prescription Opioid Drugs Manufacturing, Marketing, Distribution and Sales Practices Litigation
The Opioid Epidemic Ravaging the U.S.
Prescription opioid drugs are estimated to kill upwards of 100 Americans per day — over 36,000 Americans per year. Health services providers pay billions of dollars each year both in payments for unnecessary and harmful prescriptions of the drugs. Themselves and the costs of treating the diseases and injuries they cause. Accidental drug overdose deaths, of which at least two-thirds are opioid overdoses. Also, are the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50. The economic burden caused by opioid abuse in the United States is approximately $78.5 billion. In addition including lost productivity and increased social services, health insurance costs, increased criminal justice presence and strain on judicial resources, and substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation.
Opioid manufacturing and distributing companies systematically and repeatedly disregarded the health and safety of their customers and the public. Charged by law to monitor and report dangerous behavior. They failed to do so in favor of maximizing corporate profits and increasing their market share. Corporate greed and callous indifference to known, serious potential for human suffering have caused this public health crisis. Defendants helped unleash a healthcare crisis that has had far-reaching financial, social, and deadly consequences in this country[1].
San Francisco Lawsuit
On December 18, 2018, the City Attorney of San Francisco, Dennis Herrera. Related to Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel, recorded a government legal claim. For the benefit of the City and County of San Francisco against the significant drug organizations and merchants answerable for the assembling. transmission, and offer of perilous, profoundly habit-forming and frequently deadly remedy narcotics like Oxycontin and fentanyl in San Francisco. The claim charges these organizations arranged a far reaching misrepresentation wherein they made billions by misleadingly showcasing these medications. To individuals of San Francisco while addressing the medications as protected and successful, making tons of addicts. Therefore, peruse a duplicate of the San Francisco narcotics grievance.
Alaska Tribes & Native Communities Lawsuits
On November 16, 2018, Lieff Cabraser, along with co-counsel, filed a class-action federal RICO lawsuit in Anchorage. Alaska against opioid drug manufacturers and distributors for unnecessary Alaskan Native and American Indian opioid deaths across Alaska. The suit, filed on behalf of the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, the Asa’Carsarmiut Tribe. The Akiak Native Community, the Native Village of Port Heiden, and the Native Village of Afognak, seeks justice for the unprecedented costs. Also depradations of the opioid drug epidemic across Alaska.
Earlier, on October 30, 2018, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a similar class action RICO lawsuit in Anchorage on behalf of the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Chugachmiut, the Copper River Native Association, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, and Southcentral Foundation against the same group of opiate drug manufacturers and distributorsfor their actions leading to the explosive opioid epidemic across the United States and in the impacted Alaska Native communities. The complaint in the Tanana, et al. suit was amended on November 15, 2018[2].
Current update
States, cities, and counties will soon be receiving funds from opioid manufacturers. Pharmaceutical distributors and pharmacies as a result of litigation brought against these companies for their role in the opioid epidemic that has claimed more than half a million lives over the past two decades.
Governors, attorneys general, and legislators will face difficult decisions in determining the best use of the funds. The following organizations encourage the use of five guiding principles during this process.
Conclusion
Opioid litigation continues a growing public health litigation trend in which governments seek to hold companies responsible for population harms related to their products. The litigation can serve to address gaps in regulatory and legislative policymaking and in market self-regulation pervasive in the prescription opioid domain. Moreover, prior opioid settlements have satisfied civil tort litigation objectives of obtaining compensation for injured parties, deterring harmful behavior, and holding certain opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies accountable for their actions. In this way, opioid litigation represents progress over prior public health litigation campaigns involving tobacco, lead paint, and asbestos, which had more limited tort litigation effects. Although opioid litigation is not a comprehensive solution to the opioid crisis, it can complement other strategies and infuse much needed money, behavior changes, and public accountability for prescription opioid and related harms.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/drug-distributors-jj-reach-landmark-26-bln-opioid-settlement-2021-07-21/
[2] https://www.lieffcabraser.com/injury/opioids/
