Central Islip, NY--A
New York State Supreme Court judge has denied a motion to dismiss cases brought
by multiple New York municipalities, including Schuyler County, against current
and former directors of opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma.
In a ruling filed Friday (June 21), Justice Jerry Garguilo
found thirty-one counties and two cities had alleged sufficient facts to move
forward against various members of the Sackler family in order to recoup
millions of dollars in costs tied to the opioid crisis.
Among the local counties and cities making claims are Schuyler
County, Seneca County, Steuben County, Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca.
According to Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman, Schuyler County's claims include public nuisance, negligence, fraud and false
advertising.
Pursuant to the June 21 decision, the Sackler family had
argued that they were not vicariously liable for the acts of Purdue’s board of
directors and that the cities and counties had failed to allege that any of
them participated in making the alleged misstatements in the complaint.
However, Garguilo found that, under New York law, directors
may be held individually liable for a company’s tort action if they “directed,
controlled, approved or ratified” the decision that lead to the injuries.
The complaint, the judge noted, alleged the Sacklers, as
“controlling directors” of Purdue, oversaw the company’s marketing and
targeting of doctors. The Sacklers
include former Purdue Chair and president Richard Sackler and seven other
members of the family.
A public nuisance claim, the judge wrote, “may be an
appropriate tool to address the consequential harm from the defendants’
concerted efforts to market and promote their products for sale and
distribution, particularly as such efforts are alleged to have created or
contributed to a crisis of epidemic proportions.”
Therefore, Garguilo allowed the cases to go forward, pending
further discovery and other pretrial proceedings.
One such case was recently brought by Schuyler County. In
August 2017, the County Legislature voted to retain the firm of Napoli Shkolnik
to work with Getman, as special counsel, to bring an action against the
manufacturers and distributers of prescription opiates for damages to the
County. In May 2018, Getman filed a nearly 250-page Summons and Complaint for
damages to the county. That case was transferred to Suffolk County Courts
shortly thereafter, to join other cases brought by various New York state
counties. The counties later added the
Sacklers as individual defendants.
“We applaud the court’s decision,” Getman said. “Schuyler
County’s lawsuit will move forward to seek reimbursement for its expenses allegedly
related to the opioid crisis as well as to provide the County with financial
aid to fight addiction, overdoses, drug-related crimes and drug deaths.”
According to Schuyler County Administrator Tim O’Hearn, the
lawsuit was filed at no risk to the county, as Napoli Shkolnik will work on
contingency basis that will cover all costs associated with the lawsuit.
“By going forward with litigation, the County Legislature
hopes to lessen the burden to taxpayers and hold manufacturers and distributors
responsible for any role in the opioid epidemic,” O’Hearn said.
Schuyler County is one of several New York municipalities to
file lawsuits against the manufacturers and distributors of opioid pain
killers. At least thirty-three municipalities across the state are suing
pharmaceutical companies for what they claim are deceptive marketing practices.
In addition, in February 2018, New York State officials
filed a lawsuit against Insys Therapeutics, Inc., alleging that Insys
deceptively promoted prescription opiate Subsys for unsafe uses and violated
state law by downplaying drug’s addictive risks.
A copy of the court’s decision can be found here.
A copy of Schuyler County’s Summons and Complaint can be
found here
Note: The allegations
in a civil complaint are merely accusations and defendants are not considered
culpable unless and until accusations are proven by a preponderance of evidence
in a court of law.
