Miami Sues Drugmakers, Distributors for Opioid Crisis
Miami joins other jurisdictions blaming drugmakers and distributors for opioid deaths and overdoses.
April 17, 2018 at 04:24 PM
3 minute read
The city of Miami claims pharmaceutical companies and drug distributors deceived opioid users with aggressive marketing tactics into believing their products were safe but in reality contributed to the opioid epidemic affecting millions of Americans.
Lawyers representing the city filed a lawsuit Monday under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act against a host of pharmaceutical companies and distributors led by Purdue Pharma LP, maker of the widely prescribed OxyContin, as well as Janssen, Ortho-McNeil, AmerisourceBergen and Walgreens.
The city blamed drug sales representatives for aggressively targeting doctors for in-person marketing and giving them cash payments.
“Sales representatives from Insys [Therapeutics] and Purdue were the most frequent visitors to Miami with at least 1,398 and 368 visits, respectively between the third quarter of 2013 and 2016,” the complaint said. “These visits frequently coincided with payments to the prescriber for 'promotional speaking,' 'food and beverage,' 'consulting,' 'travel and lodging,' 'honoraria' and 'education.' ”
The city claimed drug reps from the defendants paid roughly $340,000 to doctors in the same time frame.
In 2016, 640 opioid overdoses and 1,717 fire-rescue calls involving the opioid antidote Naloxone were counted in Miami, the complaint said.
Purdue posted a statement on its website saying the company has committed “
substantial resources” to fight the opioid epidemic.
“Purdue has supported many initiatives to combat opioid abuse, such as educational programs for healthcare professionals and law enforcement, and prescription monitoring programs,” the company said. “In addition, Purdue has led the development of opioids with abuse-deterrent properties.”
The city also called out several pharmaceutical companies, including Purdue, for cases against them brought by state law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies for opioid-related conduct.
Purdue and three executives pleaded guilty to federal charges for misleading doctors, patients and regulators about the risk of addiction and OxyContin's abuse potential, the 134-page complaint said.
“As laid out in its plea agreement, Purdue systematically misrepresented the risk of addiction, including promising that opioid addiction occurred in less than 1 percent of patients and that opioids were not addictive when legitimately prescribed,” the Miami-Dade Circuit Court lawsuit said.
In another case involving the painkiller, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman charged Endo Pharmaceuticals “knew as early as 2011 that Opana was being abused in New York, but certain sales representatives who detailed New York health care providers testified that they did not know about any policy or duty to report problematic conduct,” the complaint said.
Schneiderman found “health care providers who were subsequently arrested or convicted for illegal prescribing of opioids a total of 326 times, and these prescribers collectively wrote 1,370 prescriptions for Opana.”
Julie Braman Kane and Mike Eidson of Colson Hicks Eidson represent the city.
“The opioid epidemic is taking a major toll all across America, and especially in our hometown of Miami,” Kane said. “When corporations aggressively and intentionally take actions that injure people and cause significant harm to our community, the civil justice system holds them accountable.”
The lawsuit follows on the heels of a similar complaint filed April 5 by Palm Beach County against a similar set of drug industry defendants. The county is represented by The Ferraro Law Firm in Miami and New York's Napoli Shkolnik and Stull, Stull & Brody.
Many of the cases have been moved to multidistrict litigation in Ohio federal court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Close Our Borders?' Senate Judiciary Committee Examines Economics, Legal Predicate for Mass Deportation Proposal
3 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1On The Move: Moore & Van Allen Adds To C-Suite, Cadwalader Promotes Three In Charlotte
- 2Climate Protestors are Targeting A&O Shearman. Here's Why
- 3What Will Happen to U.S. Efforts Against Financial Secrecy and Corruption Under Trump’s Leadership?
- 4A Look Back at the Biggest Legal Industry Shifts in 2024
- 5Ben Brafman's Professional Legacy After 50 Years? Himself
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250