“Walgreens has a regulatory obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent drugs from being diverted and harming the public,” Breyer wrote. “Evidence at trial established that Walgreens violated these obligations.”
A trial will follow to determine how much the company will have to pay the city to address the damage of the opioid crisis.
Walgreens spokesman Fraser Engerman said the company was “disappointed” by the decision and would appeal.
“Like we said during this process, we never manufactured or sold opioids, nor did we distribute them to the ‘pill mills’ or internet pharmacies that fueled this crisis.” , endorses the professionalism and integrity of pharmacists who are committed community health professionals.”
City attorney David Chiu said the first bench trial to hold Walgreens responsible for the opioid epidemic was the latest in a long-running effort to hold drug distributors and pharmacies accountable. It has national significance,” he said. Chiu accused Walgreens of shifting the blame because the company recently closed its stores in the city, citing the effects of the drug epidemic.
“This is like an arsonist complaining about a fire,” he said at a press conference.
The ruling is the second blow to the pharmacy giant, with thousands of lawsuits remaining by states, cities and counties. Unlike Johnson & Johnson and Teva, the three largest drug distributors and pharmaceutical companies, Walgreens has not reached a national settlement. The manufacturer didn’t go bankrupt like Purdue Pharma, Mallinckrodt or Insys.
In his 112-page opinion letter, Breyer detailed the city’s drug crisis and a timeline for Walgreens’ response to substance abuse. Paul Geller, an attorney representing San Francisco and other communities across the country battling drug companies, said the ruling was “no run-of-the-mill legal ruling,” drawing close attention to the crisis in the city and how it does it. Pointed out the details we paid for. Walgreens contributed.
“We hope it will be distributed as a must-read at board meetings of major pharmaceutical companies across the country,” Geller said.
Attorney Peter Moosey, who also represents San Francisco and other communities, said the ruling could help in other cases.
“Walgreens has been hiding, covering up, and getting away with the truth throughout this five-year litigation,” he said. “Walgreens knew no system existed to detect and stop questionable orders, but continued to ship opioids at an alarming pace to increase profits. San Francisco is now beginning the healing process. We are one step closer to.”
The decision comes after the company reached a $683 million settlement with the state of Florida in May, halting its trial in state court. In November, an Ohio jury found that the company, along with her CVS and Walmart, contributed to the opioid crisis in two counties.
Walgreens stopped distributing opioids after the Drug Enforcement Administration closed its warehouse in 2012.
But the city argued that as the illicit drug market evolves, Walgreens’ shipping and dispensing ramifications continue to have an impact as drug users move from prescription drugs to heroin to fentanyl.
Opioid overdoses, including heroin and fentanyl, are soaring in San Francisco, with deaths rising 478% to 584 between 2015 and 2020, according to city data. Opioid-related emergency room visits have tripled for him at the same time, to nearly 3,000 in 2020.
During the trial, city officials testified about the extent to which the crisis has permeated daily life. Told. When paramedics attend to someone who has no pulse and no breathing, they assume it’s an opioid overdose.
The system of monitoring questionable orders that Walgreens was required to maintain under the Controlled Substances Act was ineffective, the judge said. Thousands of questionable orders were sent to pharmacies without investigation.
Breyer’s verdict criticized the company, accused executives of failing to stop drug diversion, and repeatedly denied internal requests for a central database of reports on questionable customers. He said the compliance officer was “vague and evasive” at the stand.
The judge sided with the city, agreeing that the company pressured the pharmacist. The pharmacist filled out Dew’s diligence forms on paper and kept them in her filing cabinet rather than electronically. Pharmacists at one store could not access records at other locations.
If the pharmacist refused to fill out the prescription, the refusal was recorded in an in-house computer system limited to 320 characters.
“The Walgreens pharmacy operated in an information silo,” says Breyer. “It didn’t have to be.”
