Connect with us

U.S.

Judge in Massive Johnson & Johnson Opioid Case Miscalculates Payment by $107M

Published

on

  • An Oklahoma judge admitted he made a $107 million miscalculation on the $572 million Johnson & Johnson fine that the company was ordered to pay the state in August.
  • The ruling, citing deceptive practices in Johnson & Johnson’s opioid marketing, was the first time a judge held a pharmaceutical company responsible for the opioid crisis.
  • Johnson & Johnson is now instead expected to pay $465 million because the judge accidentally added three zeros to a provision that required it to help the state develop a program for treating babies born with conditions related to drug dependencies.
  • Johnson & Johnson has been working to lower or eradicate the fine and appealed the decision in September with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, calling the ruling an unprecedented interpretation of state law.

Judge Miscalculated Payment

An Oklahoma judge admitted to making a $107 million mistake on Tuesday, after having previously fined Johnson & Johnson $572 million for its role in worsening the opioid crisis.

On Aug. 26, Judge Thad Balkman concluded that Johnson & Johnson’s deceptive practices led to higher rates of addiction and overdose. The lawsuit was the first instance where a judge held a pharmaceutical company responsible for the opioid crisis.

Balkman met with both the state and Johnson & Johnson on Tuesday to discuss the company’s payment. Prior to the meeting, Johnson & Johnson attorneys submitted a filing that alleged a figure of $107,683,000 had been miscalculated.

“No evidence supports this higher amount, which appears simply to reflect a mistaken addition of three zeros to the calculation of the annual average,” the filing states, “yet the state’s proposed judgment fails to account for this discrepancy.”

The payment concerned a provision to help the state develop a program for treating babies with neonatal abstinence syndrome, a condition that could arise if babies are born with drug dependencies because their mothers were taking opioid while pregnant.

Balkman then agreed with Johnson & Johnson, realizing the payment should have been $107,683. This new correction would essentially lower the fine to $465 million, but Balkman hasn’t issued his final order, so that number could still change. 

“I acknowledge the computing error contained in my August 26th judgment, Balkman said. That will be the last time I use that calculator.”

The Lawsuit

Balkman handed down his decision after a seven-week trial stemming from a lawsuit by the state of Oklahoma.

While Johnson & Johnson is widely known for manufacturing products like shampoo and lotion, it also deals in pharmaceuticals. In fact, the company has a huge stake in manufacturing opioids, with many of the raw ingredients used in other companies’ opioid products coming from Johnson & Johnson.

During the trial, Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter argued more than 4,500 people in the state died from opioid overdoses between 2007 and 2017.

The lawsuit was argued on the basis that Johnson & Johnson violated public nuisance laws, which generally pertain to property disputes but are broad and can be applied to health issues. Following Balkman’s ruling, many hailed the case as a landmark decision and predicted that it would set a precedent for future cases against other major pharmaceutical companies.

While Balkman originally ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million, Oklahoma had asked for $17.5 billion as part of a 30-year plan to cover a number of services—including treatment for victims, emergency care, law enforcement, social services, and other addiction-related needs

Balkman, however, said the state hadn’t provided “sufficient evidence”  for costs past the first year.

What’s Next for Johnson & Johnson?

Johnson & Johnson is continuing to fight to lower and even eradicate their fine. In September, the company filed an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling was an unprecedented interpretation of state law.

Until Johnson & Johnson knows if that appeal will be heard, however, it has focused its efforts on reducing its court-ordered payout to $355 million. That payment would reflect two settlements reached by both Teva Pharmaceuticals and Purdue Pharma who were also originally named in the same Oklahoma lawsuit. 

The push for a smaller fine also comes as Balkman decides whether the court will continue to monitor the opioid crisis in Oklahoma and whether he could potentially require Johnson & Johnson to shell out more money over the next 20 years.

“The evidence isn’t that one year is enough,” an attorney for the state argued. “We’ll take one year, but it’s going to take more than that.”

And all of this comes as another major opioid lawsuit began selecting its jury in Cleveland, Ohio on Wednesday.

See what others are saying: (CBS News) (KTUL) (CNN)

U.S.

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Police in Two Qualified Immunity Cases

Published

on

The move further solidifies the contentious legal doctrine that protects officers who commit alleged constitutional violations.


SCOTUS Hears Qualified Immunity Cases 

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of police in two separate cases involving qualified immunity, the controversial legal doctrine that shields officers accused of violating constitutional rights from lawsuits.

The topic has become a major flashpoint in debates over police reform and curbing police violence since the protests against racial injustice and police brutality in the summer of 2020.

On one side, supporters of qualified immunity claim it is necessary to ensure that police can do their jobs without worrying about frivolous lawsuits. 

However, opponents argue that judicial interpretations of the doctrine over time have given police incredibly broad legal immunity for misconduct and use of excessive force. Under a previous Supreme Court ruling, in order for officers to be held liable, plaintiffs have to show that they violated rights “clearly established” by a previous ruling.

In other words, officers cannot be held liable unless there is another case that involves almost identical circumstances.

As a result, many argue the doctrine creates a Catch-22: Officers are shielded from liability because there is no past precedent, but the reason there is no past precedent is because officers are shielded from liability in the first place.

An Ongoing Debate

Critics argue that the two cases the Supreme Court saw Monday illustrate that double bind, as both involved accusations of excessive force commonly levied against police.

In one case, officers used non-lethal bean bag rounds against a suspect and knelt on his back to subdue him. In the other, police shot and killed a suspect after he threatened them with a hammer.

The justices overturned both lower-court rulings without ordering full briefing and argument because of the lack of precedent. The court issued the decisions in unsigned orders with no dissent, signaling they did not even see the cases as close calls. 

Advocates for qualified immunity claim the decisions signal that the current Supreme Court is not open to changing qualified immunity, and the most likely path for opponents of the doctrine is legislation.

While Democrats in Congress have made numerous efforts to limit qualified immunity, including most recently in the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act passed by the House earlier this year, all those attempts have been blocked by Republicans.

At the state level, dozens of bills have been killed after heavy lobbying from police unions. As a result, it remains unclear what path proponents for reform have at this juncture.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The New York Times) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Florida School Says Students Vaccinated Against COVID-19 Must Stay Home for 30 Days

Published

on

The school falsely claimed that people who have just been vaccinated risk “shedding” the coronavirus and could infect others.


Centner Academy Vaccination Policy

A private school in Florida is now requiring all students who get vaccinated against COVID-19 to quarantine for 30 days before returning to class.

According to the local Miami outlet WSVN, Centner Academy wrote a letter to parents last week describing COVID vaccines as “experimental” and citing anti-vaccine misinformation.

“If you are considering the vaccine for your Centner Academy student(s), we ask that you hold off until the Summer when there will be time for the potential transmission or shedding onto others to decrease,” the letter reportedly stated.

“Because of the potential impact on other students and our school community, vaccinated students will need to stay at home for 30 days post-vaccination for each dose and booster they receive and may return to school after 30 days as long as the student is healthy and symptom-free.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has debunked the false claim that those newly vaccinated against COVID-19 can “shed” the virus.

According to the agency’s COVID myths page, vaccine shedding “can only occur when a vaccine contains a weakened version of the virus,” but “none of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States contain the live virus that causes COVID-19. This means that a COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19.”

In fact, early research has suggested that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated people.

Beyond that, unvaccinated people are more likely to spread COVID in general because they are much more likely to get the virus than vaccinated people. According to recently published CDC data, as of August, unvaccinated people were six times more likely to get COVID than vaccinated people and 11 times more likely to die from the virus.

Centner Academy Continues Spread of Misinformation

In a statement to The Washington Post Monday, Centner Academy co-founder David Centner doubled down on the school’s new policy, which he described as a “precautionary measure” based on “numerous anecdotal cases that have been in circulation.”

“The school is not opining as to whether unexplained phenomena have a basis in fact, however we prefer to err on the side of caution when making decisions that impact the health of the school community,” he added.

The new rule echoes similar efforts Centner Academy has made that run counter to public health guidance and scientific knowledge.

In April, the school made headlines when its leadership told vaccinated school employees that they were not allowed to be in contact with any students “until more information is known” and encouraged employees to wait until summer to get the jab.

According to The New York Times, the following week, a math and science teacher allegedly told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.

The outlet also reported that the school’s other co-founder, Leila Centner, discouraged masking, but when state health officials came for routine inspections, teachers said they were directed in a WhatsApp group to put masks on.

See what others are saying: (WSVN) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Katie Couric Says She Edited Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote About Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem

Published

on

Couric said she omitted part of a 2016 interview in order to “protect” the justice.


Kate Couric Edited Quote From Justice Ginsburg

In her upcoming book, journalist Katie Couric admitted to editing a quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2016 in order to “protect” Ginsberg from potential criticism. 

Couric interviewed the late justice for an article in Yahoo News. During their discussion, she asked Ginsburg about her thoughts on athletes like Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem to protest racial inequality.

“I think it’s really dumb of them,” Ginsburg is quoted saying in the piece. “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”

According to The Daily Mail and The New York Post, which obtained advance copies of Couric’s book “Going There,” there was more to Ginsburg’s response. Couric wrote that she omitted a portion where Ginsburg said the form of protest showed a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life…Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from.

Couric Says She Lost Sleep Making Choice

“As they became older they realize that this was youthful folly,” Ginsberg reportedly continued. “And that’s why education is important.

According to The Daily Mail, Couric wrote that the Supreme Court’s head of public affairs sent an email asking to remove comments about kneeling because Ginsburg had misspoken. Couric reportedly added that she felt a need to “protect” the justice, thinking she may not have understood the question. Couric reached out to her friend, New York Times reporter David Brooks, regarding the matter and he allegedly likewise believed she may have been confused by the subject. 

Couric also wrote that she was a “big RBG fan” and felt her comments were “unworthy of a crusader for equality.” Because she knew the remarks could land Ginsburg in hot water, she said she “lost a lot of sleep” and felt “conflicted” about whether or not to edit them out. 

Couric was trending on Twitter Wednesday and Thursday as people questioned the ethics behind her choice to ultimately cut part of the quote. Some thought the move showed a lack of journalistic integrity while others thought revealing the story now harmed Ginsburg’s legacy.

See what others are saying: (New York Post) (The Daily Mail) (Insider)

Continue Reading