OxyContin and Addiction
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 335
Prescription drugs can be harmful.
The maker of OxyContin and three of it's former executives pleaded guilty this week to charges they misled the public about the risk of addiction associated with that drug. It is being reported that Purdue Pharma L.P., it's president, the companies top lawyer and former chief medical officer will pay $643.5 million in fines. If such claims are brought by patients or their estates, the physicians and the manufacturer will in all likelihood do finger pointing to assign fault to one another and at the patient and their families.
This plea comes days after the same manufacturer agreed to pay $19.5 million to 26 states and the District of Columbia to settle related complaints having to do with encouraging physicians to over prescribe this powerful pain killer. You may know of a family or person who took this drug. OxyContin is a trade name for Oxycodone. This is a time-release pain killer that can be highly addictive. In 2002 the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reported the drug caused 146 deaths and contributed to another 318.
If you know of someone who would like to consider filing a claim pertaining to this drug contact an experience trial attorney. The injured party or their family should preserve the prescription bottles and keep a copy of the written script provided by the doctor. Documentation is always important.
I have personally been involved in an overdose case and they are not easy cases to win. In Pappas v. Clark, 494 N.W.2d 245 (Iowa 1992) I represented a widow whose husband died of an overdose. She sued the physician for alleged failure to treat the husband's drug addiction condition and the pharmacist for allegedly failing to alert other pharmacies about her husband's illegal activities in obtaining prescription drugs, and against other pharmacies for allegedly failing to adequately check the husband's request for prescription drugs. The husband had possession of script pads taken after hours when he would do computer work in the physician's offices. He was writing his own scripts and the pharmacies were filling them. When a pharmacist raised questions about the legitimacy of the script the husband was not reported to other pharmacies, as was the protocol in Iowa at the time. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the husband's fraudulent obtaining prescription drugs and of using illegal drugs in causing his death was not merely contributorily negligent, but barred the wife's cause of action. The same holding was applied to the widow's claim against the physician who allegedly was made aware of the patient's drug addiction and did not follow through with treatment. This holding seems odd; in that addicts should be expected to exhibit drug seeking and drug taking behavior, legal or illegal. One must ask the questions whether there can be any professional liability for negligent treatment of a known drug addict?
Following the cases of Cole v. Taylor, 301 N.W.2d 766 (Iowa 1981) [The Iowa Supreme Court held that a patient could not recover in tort from her psychiatrist on claim that, in his professional capacity, he negligently failed to prevent her from committing murder, for which she was convicted, and her present husband was likewise precluded from bringing suit on such ground for loss of consortium.] and Veverka v. Cash, 318 N.W.2d 447 (Iowa 1982). [The Supreme Court, Allbee, J., held that in view of fact that arson, the underlying felony in conviction of inmate of felony-murder, is not a specific intent crime, defense of diminished capacity, the sole basis upon which inmate sought to establish his innocence of crime for which he was convicted in civil malpractice action against psychiatrist, would not be material to his guilt or innocence in any event, thus precluding defendant from recovery.] The law may be changing requiring physicians to give notice when they are made aware of a patients propensity to harm another person.
These three cases seem to contradict the reasoning in Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657, 660--2 (Iowa 1971), the spring gun case many law students study, but is nonetheless the law today. The reasoning being that if the Plaintiff must rely, in whole or in part, upon an illegal or immoral act to prove up their claim the claim is barred as a matter of law. The Court was careful to distinguish such a claim from addiction caused only by prescription drugs.