Opioid Crisis And Criminal Liability
Opioid Crisis and Criminal Liability – Overview
Background:
The opioid crisis refers to the widespread misuse of prescription and illicit opioid drugs, leading to addiction, overdoses, and deaths across the U.S. In response, law enforcement and prosecutors have targeted several types of actors for criminal liability:
Pharmaceutical manufacturers for misbranding, fraud, or failure to warn.
Distributors and pharmacies for failing to monitor suspicious orders.
Doctors and medical professionals for improper prescribing or pill mill operations.
Individuals for illegal possession, distribution, or trafficking of opioids.
Federal statutes involved:
Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
Anti-Kickback Statute
False Claims Act
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) (in some cases)
Key Legal Issues:
Criminal negligence or recklessness in prescribing or distributing opioids.
Fraud and conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies in marketing.
Trafficking and possession by individuals.
Conspiracy and racketeering in pill mill operations.
Detailed Case Law
Case 1: United States v. Purdue Pharma (2020)
Facts:
Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, was accused of misleading doctors and patients about the addiction risks of their opioids.
Legal Issue:
Whether Purdue’s marketing practices constituted criminal misbranding and fraud under the FDCA and CSA.
Outcome:
Purdue Pharma pled guilty to criminal charges, including misbranding and agreed to pay over $8 billion in fines.
Significance:
This was a landmark case holding pharmaceutical manufacturers criminally liable for deceptive marketing that contributed to the opioid epidemic.
Case 2: United States v. Insys Therapeutics Executives (2019)
Facts:
Executives of Insys Therapeutics bribed doctors to prescribe Subsys, a fentanyl spray, often to patients who did not medically need it.
Legal Issue:
Whether executives were liable for conspiracy, fraud, and violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute.
Outcome:
Top executives were convicted and sentenced to prison terms.
Significance:
This case demonstrated personal criminal liability for pharmaceutical executives involved in kickback schemes contributing to opioid misuse.
Case 3: United States v. Michael Milgram (2018)
Facts:
Milgram, a licensed physician, was running a "pill mill" in Florida, prescribing opioids without legitimate medical purpose.
Legal Issue:
Whether prescribing opioids outside the usual course of professional practice constitutes criminal liability under the CSA.
Outcome:
Convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that doctors abusing prescribing authority can face severe criminal penalties for fueling the opioid crisis.
Case 4: United States v. Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen (2021)
Facts:
These major drug distributors were accused of failing to report and halt suspicious opioid orders.
Legal Issue:
Whether distributors violated the CSA by neglecting to monitor and report suspicious orders.
Outcome:
Settled with federal and state governments for billions of dollars but without criminal convictions.
Significance:
Showed the importance of monitoring obligations for distributors and that failure to do so can lead to massive civil and potential criminal liability.
Case 5: United States v. Gerald Lewis (2019)
Facts:
Lewis was a drug trafficker charged with distributing large quantities of heroin and fentanyl.
Legal Issue:
Criminal liability for illegal distribution and trafficking under the CSA.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Significance:
Demonstrates criminal penalties for individual drug traffickers fueling the opioid epidemic at street level.
Case 6: State of Ohio v. Purdue Pharma (2019)
Facts:
Ohio sued Purdue for deceptive marketing causing public nuisance.
Legal Issue:
State's authority to hold pharmaceutical companies liable for the public health consequences of opioids.
Outcome:
Purdue settled for hundreds of millions, agreeing to changes in marketing and opioid distribution.
Significance:
Illustrates state-level enforcement complementing federal criminal actions against opioid companies.
Summary of Criminal Liability in Opioid Crisis
Manufacturers can be criminally liable for fraud, misbranding, and illegal marketing.
Executives and individuals involved in kickbacks or deceptive practices face personal criminal liability.
Doctors prescribing outside professional standards risk prosecution for distribution of controlled substances.
Distributors must monitor suspicious orders or risk liability.
Individual traffickers are prosecuted for illegal possession and distribution.
Conclusion
Criminal liability in the opioid crisis addresses a complex web of actors responsible for fueling addiction and overdose deaths. The courts have increasingly held pharmaceutical companies and their executives accountable alongside individual prescribers and traffickers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments