Baltimore, Maryland, has opted to accept a $152 million settlement from two drug distributors as part of its ongoing efforts to combat the devastating effects of the opioid crisis, a decision that signifies a pragmatic move in light of a complex legal landscape. This amount represents slightly less than the jury’s initial verdict of $266 million delivered late last year, but it contributes to the city’s total recovery of $579.8 million from pharmaceutical companies.
The initial jury award came after an extensive seven-week trial against McKesson and AmerisourceBergen, which concluded in 2022. However, Baltimore City Circuit Judge Lawrence Fletcher-Hill later deemed that sum “grossly excessive” and called for a new trial to reassess the damages. To expedite the process and avoid further legal battles, Judge Fletcher-Hill proposed that the city accept a reduced award of about $52 million. Additionally, if the city accepted the deal, it would receive $100 million aimed at addressing the ongoing consequences of the opioid epidemic.
In a statement released late Thursday, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott indicated that the decision to accept the settlement was made by the city’s law department. “While this amount is lower than the jury awarded us, this award still dwarfs the original amount the city would have received, had we not pursued this separate litigation,” Scott remarked. He emphasized that this settlement is a significant achievement as it represents the only successful jury verdict and judgment against the two companies in question.
Baltimore has been grappling with the nation’s highest rate of overdose deaths among major U.S. cities, a trend corroborated by investigative reports from local and national media. McKesson and AmerisourceBergen have thus far declined to comment on the recent decision. However, a spokesperson for McKesson indicated that the company plans to appeal the initial verdict.
Legal experts suggest that the city’s acceptance of the settlement makes sense, given the lengthy seven-year duration of the case and the uncertain outcomes a retrial could yield. Attorney Bruce Poole noted that while the jury’s award reflected the serious impact of the opioid crisis on the city, the practical considerations ultimately guided Baltimore’s decision to settle.
Baltimore previously pursued a bold strategy by taking drug companies to trial, diverging from the more common route of negotiated settlements seen in many opioid-related lawsuits across the country. Prior to the current proceedings, the city secured over $400 million by settling with several other companies, including Johnson & Johnson and Cardinal Health.
The city’s lawsuit argued that McKesson and AmerisourceBergen, acting as intermediaries, failed to regulate excessive opioid shipments to local pharmacies. Data indicates that these two companies were responsible for distributing around 60% of the opioids flooding into Baltimore and Baltimore County from 2006 to 2016. The lawsuit further contended that the excessive availability of these substances contributed to a rise in opioid use disorders, which then led many users to seek more dangerous illicit drugs.
While the city sought $5 billion in abatement funding—intended for services such as addiction treatment and housing to mitigate the ongoing opioid crisis—Judge Fletcher-Hill ultimately allocated $100 million. He refuted funding for certain programs, suggesting they were not directly linked to the crisis at hand.
Even with the reduced settlement amount, Baltimore’s recovery surpasses what the entire state of Maryland will receive as part of a larger $26 billion settlement involving several drug distributors and manufacturers, distributed over the next 18 years. This highlights both the potential merits and limitations of litigating against opioid companies to secure funds for communities in dire need of resources for addiction services.
While financial settlements have provided substantial resources for addressing this public health emergency, experts emphasize that the underlying issues of the opioid crisis are complex, and substantial harm often outweighs the benefits of financial compensation alone.
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.