Opioid Distributors Sue New York State Over Surcharge They Call 'Unconstitutional'
The lawsuit seeks to strike down a new law that mandates opioid manufacturers and distributors collectively pay $100 million each year to the state over the next six years.
July 12, 2018 at 04:34 PM
4 minute read
A coalition of opioid distributors has sued the state of New York over a new law that imposes a surcharge based on the amount of business they do in the state. The Healthcare Distribution Alliance filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last Friday. The lawsuit seeks to strike down the law, which mandates that opioid manufacturers and distributors collectively pay $100 million each year to the state over the next six years. That money will then be used for opioid treatment, recovery, prevention and education services, according to the law. The distributors said in the complaint the law is unconstitutional because it unfairly places blame on them without due process. “The Act singles out certain entities to bear this liability without adequately determining culpability,” the complaint reads. “It forces manufacturers and distributors, but not pharmacies or medical professionals, to pay for alleged harm resulting from a public health problem involving numerous actors.” The distributors call that practice “trial by legislature” in the complaint, which was first reported by the Albany Times Union.. They blame that part of the bill on Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has publicly blamed opioid manufacturers and distributors for worsening the state's opioid epidemic. Cuomo has also suggested suing pharmaceutical companies over the crisis, which Attorney General Barbara Underwood said in May the state was preparing to do. His efforts this legislative session against the opioid epidemic culminated in the Opioid Stewardship Fund. The law mandates each opioid manufacturer and distributor that does business in New York to pay a surcharge based on the amount of product they sell. The fund will total $100 million each year. Each company's charge depends how big their share of the market is. So, if one opioid manufacturer or distributor sold 10 percent of the state's opioids, they would pay $10 million, for example. That presents a few problems, the distributors said in the complaint. For one, this year's charges are based on last year's sales, long before those companies knew they would be charged. The distributors said they had no way of anticipating such a charge so they could change their behavior to offset their cost to the state. That violates the Fourteenth Amendment, they said in the complaint. It also leaves the amount of the surcharge they pay completely out of their hands, the complaint said. If a major opioid distributor decided to shift its business out of New York because of the surcharge, that would leave other companies on the hook for their share of the $100 million. “If some entities are able to reduce their surcharges by moving transactions to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, the financial burden on the remaining entities in New York will increase,” the complaint said. They also are challenging a part of the law that allows the state Commissioner of Health Howard Zucker, who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, to adjust a company's reported share of the market without explaining that change. Any change in their share would affect the amount they pay. The state law also barred companies from passing down the cost of the surcharge to consumers. The distributors said in the complaint that amounts to an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. The state Department of Health declined to comment on the lawsuit when reached Thursday. Cuomo spokesman Richard Azzopardi said the administration has not yet been served “but it's no surprise that Big Pharma will fight tooth and nail to avoid responsibility for the opioid epidemic they helped fuel.” John Calandra of McDermott Will & Emery in Manhattan is representing the Healthcare Distribution Alliance in the matter. He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
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 AllMajor Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readLawsuit Alleging $23 Million Contract Breach Against Biogen Moves Forward
Bristol-Myers Squibb Wins Dismissal of $6.4 Billion Lawsuit Alleging Intentional Delay of Cancer Drug
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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