The Arkansas Supreme Court today reversed the $1.2 billion verdict for  the state of Arkansas against two pharmaceutical companies for billing Medicaid for off-label use of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

There are two separate decisions and separate opinions.

Advertisement

In short: The Supreme Court overturned two key findings in the case, dismissing one and sending a deceptive trade practices act complaint back to circuit court. That kills the $1.2 billion award. In a separate decision written by Justice Courtney Goodson, the court, on account of the reversal, also reversed the lower court’s award of $180 million in attorney fees.

A jury had found against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Judge Timothy Fox assessed a $5,000 fine for each Risperdal prescription. The companies, which have been sued over this issue in other states, said the verdict was excessive.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Karen Baker, said the circuit court had erred in saying the Medicaid false claim act applied in the case for false statements  about use of Risperdal. The opinion said the statute applied to false statements about the certification process for operation of facilities such as nursing homes, not about use of prescription drugs. The opinion said the drug companies also had been prejudiced by admission into evidence of a federal warning letter about the use of the drug. The letter arose from a specific investigation and thus was inadmissible hearsay in the class action case, though it was referenced multiple times in the trial.

The complaint on the false Medicaid claim was reversed and dismissed. The claim on deceptive trade practices was reversed and remanded to circuit court. Justice Paul Danielson disagreed that the evidence in the unfair trade complaint was hearsay. Chief Justice Jim Hannah and Justice Donald Corbin joined Danielson, which meant three of the seven judges would have allowed the evidence that led to the reversal.

Advertisement

I’m seeking comment from Attorney General Dustin McDaniel on where this leaves the state in terms of a retrial on the trade practices complaint. The anticipation of state receipt of this verdict has figured in recent legislative planning for future budgets. That windfall won’t be arriving any time soon, if ever.

UPDATE: A statement from McDaniel:

Advertisement

We pursued this case based on the belief we continue to hold, which is that the General Assembly intended to give the Attorney General’s Office the authority to pursue penalties against those that would enter our state and blatantly deceive the public. I am disappointed that the Court viewed the law differently. Nevertheless, I will keep working to protect consumers against fraud and the kinds of irresponsible and greedy actions shown by Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals in their marketing of the drug Risperdal.

McDaniel has not responded to my question on the chances of retrial of the remaining count without the inadmissible evidence. Here’s some good background on the case about misuse of the drug and an earlier $2.2 billion settlement with the U.S. government on use of the drug.

Help to Keep Great Journalism Alive in Arkansas

Join the fight for truth and become a subscriber of the Arkansas Times. We've been battling powerful forces for 50 years through our tough, determined, and feisty journalism. With over 63,000 Facebook followers, 58,000 Twitter followers, 35,000 Arkansas blog followers, and 70,000 daily email blasts, our readers value great journalism. But we need your help to do even more. By subscribing and supporting our efforts, you'll not only have access to all of our articles, but you'll also be helping us hire more writers to expand our coverage. Together, we can continue to hold the powerful accountable and bring important stories to light. Subscribe now or donate for as little as $1 and be a part of the Arkansas Times community.

Previous article Disqualified judicial candidate says she’ll file limited appeal Next article Study finds limiting non-emergency transportation in private option could hurt most vulnerable patients