 News
Contact: For Immediate Release
FOUR MORE PURDUE PHARMA VICTORIES IN OXYCONTIN LITIGATION Case Against
OxyContin Distributor Withdrawn in Florida; Company Wins Two Remand
Decisions in West Virginia, One in Kentucky Stamford, CT – April 24, 2002 – Legal victories continue to mount for Purdue Pharma L.P., the Stamford, Connecticut-based distributor of OxyContinâ (oxycodone HCL controlled-release) Tablets, a prescription pain medication. Within weeks after a federal court judge in Kentucky denied a plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, a plaintiff in a federal court action in Florida withdrew her lawsuit and federal judges in West Virginia and Kentucky refused to remand cases to state court. “These victories
continue to vindicate our policy of vigorously defending each and every
one of these baseless lawsuits. We have not and will not pay to settle
these cases. One
On April 19, 2002, Judge Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered an order closing Mintz v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. following a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff. As originally filed, the allegations in Mintz were based on an overdose death alleged to have resulted from the use of OxyContinâ. The order, which terminates the lawsuit against Purdue, did not arise from a financial settlement In the West Virginia action, Jones v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., the plaintiff asked the United States District Court in the Beckley Division to send the case back to state court, where it had been filed originally. On February 27, 2002, Judge Robert C. Chambers filed a 7-page order and opinion refusing to do so, finding that the complaint failed to establish any possibility of recovery against the Purdue sales representative who had been named as a defendant in an effort designed by the plaintiff to keep the case out of federal court. Judge Chambers rejected the argument, ruling that the plaintiffs had fraudulently joined the Purdue representative to avoid federal jurisdiction. In Baker v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. and Gevedon v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., federal courts in West Virginia and the Pikeville Division of Kentucky entered extensive judicial opinions that Purdue expects will have significant value as precedents in other cases. In the March 26, 2002 opinion in Gevedon, Kentucky Federal Judge Danny C. Reeves carefully dissected a technical legal argument mounted by the plaintiffs in their attempt to defeat federal jurisdiction. Based on 20 pages of detailed analysis, Judge Reeves thoroughly rejected the ploy and kept the case in federal court. On March 28, 2002, West Virginia Judge David A. Faber denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the Baker case to state court, sustaining federal jurisdiction in part upon a finding that a West Virginia pharmacy that had been named as a defendant in the case could not be held liable for selling OxyContinâ as alleged under any principle of West Virginia law. Accordingly, Judge Faber found that the plaintiff had fraudulently joined the pharmacy and also dismissed the case against the pharmacy. The four rulings are the most recent in a string of legal victories for Purdue Pharma. In addition to the February 2002 class certification decision in Kentucky, lawsuits against the company have been dismissed in Mississippi, North Carolina, and Maine since December 2001. In an earlier action in the Kentucky case, Federal Judge Jennifer B. Coffman denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order on December 27, 2001, saying: “The plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence showing that the defendants’ marketing, promotional, or distribution practices have ever caused even one tablet of OxyContin to be inappropriately prescribed or diverted.” “Purdue Pharma is leading the fight against prescription drug abuse,” Udell continued. “We will not, however, accept legal responsibility when our product is misused, abused or obtained illegally. Personal injury lawyers who attempt to use human loss to realize a financial windfall will be sorely disappointed. “We are particularly heartened by Judge Chambers’ and Judge Faber’s opinions, which build on other remand decisions arising in OxyContin litigation,” Udell added. “By citing two Kentucky federal court decisions – in Salisbury v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. and Couch v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. – these West Virginia decisions not only affirm the correctness of our ongoing legal position, but also strengthen and extend the precedents set in those cases.” Dr. Paul D. Goldenheim, Purdue’s Executive Vice President for Worldwide Research and Development and senior physician, added, “I’m encouraged by these legal victories because of what they mean for patients in pain – the innocent victims of accident and disease – in terms of sound medical practice and good patient care. Lawsuits like these can interfere with the relationship between a doctor and a patient and impair the delivery of good medical care, including the selection – when deemed necessary by a physician – of appropriate prescription medications. Many patients tell us that they have had their lives taken away by conditions that can be relieved only through prescription medications as part of an overall treatment program.” “We are gratified by all of these rulings,” said Udell. “We have an absolute commitment to defending ourselves in court against the baseless claims of personal injury lawyers who bring lawsuits with great fanfare in the hope of a cash settlement. We look forward to similar outcomes in the future.”
The professional product labeling for OxyContin© contains the following warning:
This and other
recent announcements are available on the Purdue Pharma website at
www.purduepharma.com. |
|
|
Chat Status: |
|
|
|
|
|
