Baltimore, Maryland, is facing a legal setback in its fight against the opioid epidemic as a judge has rejected a jury’s suggested $266 million award against pharmaceutical giants McKesson and Cencora, previously known as AmerisourceBergen. Instead, the court has offered the city a more modest $100 million in abatement funds.
The legal action, initiated by Baltimore in 2024, accused both companies of contributing to the opioid crisis by distributing excessive quantities of prescription opioids in the region. According to city officials, McKesson and Cencora were responsible for around 60% of the prescription opioid market in Baltimore. From 2006 to 2019, the lawsuit claims, these companies supplied 320 million oxycodone pills within the city.
In November, a jury concluded that the pharmaceutical companies shipped an unreasonable amount of painkillers, leading to its recommended payout of $266 million. However, Judge Lawrence P. Fletcher-Hill described this figure as “excessive” and pointed out that the blame for the opioid crisis could extend beyond the pharmaceutical companies to include individual pharmacies and illegal drug dealers.
Fletcher-Hill noted that every pill sold unreasonably by McKesson and Cencora was also sold by a pharmacy, suggesting that the pharmacies share significant responsibility. The judge remarked that the plaintiffs had not adequately demonstrated that McKesson and Cencora were the primary contributors to the epidemic. He identified pharmacies as being at least equally culpable in contributing to the ongoing public health crisis.
Earlier this year, the judge had offered Baltimore $51.8 million, contending that the pharmaceutical companies were liable for less than 20% of the damages claimed. Following a request from Baltimore for an explanation of this reduced amount, the court extended its deadline for the city to accept it multiple times, eventually increasing the offer to $100 million.
Fletcher-Hill’s comments indicated a reluctance to hold the pharmaceutical companies fully accountable, particularly since it could not be proven that their distribution methods were unreasonable post-2019. He pointed out the limited evidence of any unreasonable conduct by McKesson after 2014, which involved sales to only two specific pharmacies.
A spokesperson for McKesson announced plans to appeal, arguing that the judge’s previous ruling signified that the jury’s verdict did not align with the evidence presented during the trial. They expressed disagreement over the court’s decision to approve part of the city’s abatement plan, asserting that the proposed remedies were unlinked to McKesson’s conduct or business practices.
The city initially sought $5 billion in restitution, but the judge remarked on the insufficiency of evidence supporting such a claim. Fletcher-Hill stated that Baltimore had also opted not to request any injunctive measures affecting the companies’ practices in the future, limiting remedies to address only past conduct.
Baltimore must make a decision on accepting the $100 million offer by August 22. In a related matter, the city has already received $402.5 million in opioid settlement funds from various companies, including Allergan, Cardinal Health, CVS, Walgreens, and Teva, with the settlement figures involving Johnson & Johnson still pending.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.