The Public Health Value of Opioid Litigation

Our plain-English summary of The Public Health Value of Opioid Litigation, by R.L. Haffajee (The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2020).

The study

• Author: R.L. Haffajee
• Journal: The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
• Published: 2020;48(2):279-292
• Type of article: Historical article
• Cited by: 15 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

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.

In plain English

This article is a legal and policy analysis, not a medical or scientific study. The author examined lawsuits, brought mainly by governments, against companies that made, distributed and sold prescription opioid painkillers. The author compared them with earlier litigation over tobacco, asbestos and lead paint. Drawing on earlier legal writing, the author said asbestos litigation brought some compensation and accountability for private plaintiffs in many state courts. The author also said that plaintiff wins triggered bankruptcy filings by many asbestos manufacturers, which limited later recovery. Plaintiffs' firms kept large amounts of the compensation in fees, and the litigation did not prompt changes such as an outright ban on asbestos. For opioids, the author reported settlements rising from $19.5 million (27 state attorneys general against Purdue Pharma, 2007) to $270 million (Oklahoma against Purdue, 2019). Some funds were earmarked for addiction treatment. Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson had not admitted responsibility in any opioid settlement to which either had been a party. The author concluded that opioid litigation had arguably contributed more value than asbestos or lead paint litigation, but should complement other regulation.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Legal and policy analysis (commentary) of public health tort litigation; not an empirical medical or scientific study
• Who was studied: Opioid lawsuits and settlements in the United States (well over 2000 government cases, mostly consolidated in a federal multi-district litigation), compared with past tobacco, asbestos and lead paint litigation
• Exposure: Prescription opioid analgesic medications. Asbestos, tobacco and lead paint are discussed as comparison products. The author describes asbestos as used widely in U.S. homes, public facilities and workplaces from the 1930s to the 1970s.
• Main results:
  • According to the author, asbestos litigation wins, some with punitive damages awards, triggered bankruptcy filings by many asbestos manufacturers, limiting recovery amounts in later years
  • According to the author, plaintiffs' firms in asbestos litigation retained large amounts of the compensation in fees, leaving less for injured parties
  • According to the author, despite defeats in federal court, private asbestos plaintiffs succeeded in many state court efforts to obtain some compensation and public accountability
  • According to the author, asbestos litigation did not prompt key regulatory changes such as an outright ban on asbestos, removal requirements, or a national injury compensation fund
  • Opioid compensation amounts grew over time: $19.5 million in the 2007 settlement between 27 states' attorneys general and Purdue Pharma, $270 million in the 2019 Oklahoma settlement with Purdue, and almost $500 million in the Oklahoma judgment against Johnson & Johnson
  • Of the 2019 Oklahoma-Purdue settlement, $102.5 million was allocated to the Oklahoma State University Center for Wellness and Recovery, which focuses on addiction treatment
  • Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson had not admitted responsibility in any opioid settlement to which either had been a party. Distributor and pharmacy defendants more often admitted fault.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that prescription opioid litigation had already addressed many regulatory and market failures and achieved numerous civil tort litigation objectives. In the author's view, it arguably contributed more value than asbestos and lead paint litigation. The author also said it is not a panacea and should complement other regulatory action.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author states that reviewing the tobacco, asbestos and lead paint litigation landscapes in detail was beyond the article's scope; only brief summaries were given
  • The author states that whether opioid litigation meets its objectives will depend on how the lawsuits proceed, the terms of settlements or judgments, and how those terms are carried out

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Tort.

Related studies

• Asbestos-related diseases in Italy: epidemiologic evidences and public health issues — P. Comba, E. Merler, et al. (2005)
• With the best intentions: lead research and the challenge to public health — D. Rosner, G. Markowitz (2012)
• The ghost of public health journalism: past, present, and future — G.S. Cooper, R.C. Brown (2010)
• The third wave of asbestos disease: exposure to asbestos in place. Public health control. Introduction — P.J. Landrigan (1991)
• Asbestos in the air of public buildings: a public health risk? — J. Whysner, V.T. Covello, et al. (1994)
• The art of perpetuating a public health hazard — M. Greenberg (2005)

Browse return to medical research.