State wants yearly review in opioid lawsuit

NORMAN—Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and legislative leaders told a judge in the state's opioid lawsuit Monday that they believe Oklahoma law requires him to come back year after year and order

J ohnson & J ohnson t o pay more money until the opioid crisis has been fully resolved.

“The Court cannot s hi f t responsibility for abating the nuisance from the guilty party to the innocent taxpayers of this State,” Gov. Stitt argued in the court document. “To do so would be to effectively hold the citizens of the State of

Oklahoma liable for paying to remediate harm that the Court already determined someone else caused.”

St it twas joined in his arguments by House Speaker Charles McCall and Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat. The governor and legislative leaders presented their interpretation of the law in an amicus brief.

They filed the brief as the state awaits Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman's final order in a civil case where he has already found Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries liable for creating a public nuisance through misleading marketing of opioid painkillers.

Prescription opioids were linked to more than 6,100 Oklahoma death sin 20002017, according to trial testimony. During 2015, more than 326 million opioid pills were dispensed to Oklahoma residents, enough for every adult to have 110 pills, testimony revealed.

The judge initially ordered Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries to pay $572 million to help abate the crisis. However, before issuing his final order Balkman has allowed attorneys to raise issues with his verdict that could increase or lower the amount Johnson & Johnson ultimately may be required to pay.

During an earlier hearing, the judge agreed with Johnson & Johnson attorneys that he made a $107 million mathematical error that inflated his verdict and said he will correct the mistake when he issues his final order.

The judge took two other issues under advisement.

Johnson & Johnson attorneys contend the verdict should be reduced by an additional $355 million to give the company credit for the state's settlements with other drug companies prior to trial. Attorneys for the state contend Johnson & Johnson is not entitled the any offset.

The other big issue — the one that Stitt and legislative leaders addressed in their brief — is whether the state should be able to come back year after year and ask the judge to order Johnson & Johnson to pay more money if they can show the state's opioid crisis has not been fully abated.

Although witnesses for the state testified it will take at least 20 years to abate the opioid crisis, Judge Balkman noted in his initial Aug. 26 verdict that the $572 million was calculated to cover one year of an abatement plan.

“Though several of the State's witnesses testified that the plan `will take at least 20 years to work, the State did not present sufficient evidence of the amount of time and costs necessary, beyond year one, to abate the Opioid Crisis,” the judge wrote in August.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter contends the state should be allowed to return year after year to ask the judge to order Johnson & Johnson to pay more money, while attorneys for the drug company contend that would be an “illegitimate exercise of judicial power.”

If the judge were to accept Hunter's position, the amount Johnson & Johnson ultimately could be required to pay potentially could be much closer to the $17 billion that the state was seeking.

Stitt and the House and Senate leaders said they were ready to work with the judge to see that a multi-year abatement plan gets implemented.