Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Health & Family Oriented Primary Health Care Clinic v. Fisher (Ex parte Abbott Labs.)
Decision Date | 28 May 2021 |
Docket Number | 1191001 |
Parties | EX PARTE ABBOTT LABORATORIES and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (In re: Mobile County Board of Health and Family Oriented Primary Health Care Clinic v. Mitchell "Chip" Fisher et al.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Donald C. Radcliff of Brady Radcliff & Brown, LLP, Mobile; and John A. McCauley of Venable, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for petitioners.
T. Roe Frazer II of Frazer PLC, Nashville, Tennessee; Mary Beth Mantiply of Mantiply & Assoc., Montrose; and J. Nixon Daniel III of Beggs & Lane, RLLP, Pensacola, Florida, for respondents.
Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Abbott"), petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Mobile Circuit Court to dismiss all claims asserted by the Mobile County Board of Health and the Family Oriented Primary Health Care Clinic (collectively referred to as "Mobile Health") against Abbott on the basis that those claims are barred by the rule of repose or by the applicable statute of limitations. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Because this petition concerns a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., the facts in the complaint1 constitute the only operative facts for our review of the petition. See, e.g., Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Youth Servs., 880 So. 2d 393, 397 (Ala. 2003) .
The Mobile County Board of Health is the public health department of Mobile County. The Family Oriented Primary Health Care Clinic is "a partnership between Family Oriented Primary Health Care Governing Council, Inc. and the Mobile County Health Department" that "provides comprehensive primary care and preventive care, including health, oral health, mental health, and substance abuse services to persons of all ages, regardless of their ability to pay and regardless of their health insurance status." Abbott Laboratories, Inc., is a subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories; the principal place of business for both is Abbott Park, Illinois.
hydrochloride controlled-release tablets, an opioid analgesic drug. In 1995, the United States Food and Drug Administration (‘FDA’) approved OxyContin for the management of moderate to severe pain where use of an opioid analgesic is appropriate for more than a few days.
Howland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 104 Ohio St. 3d 584, 584, 821 N.E.2d 141, 142-43 (2004).
The complaint categorized Purdue as a "related entity" to "the Marketing Defendants," one of which is Abbott. Mobile Health alleged that, "[t]hrough a massive marketing campaign premised on false and incomplete information, the Marketing Defendants engineered a dramatic shift in how and when opioids are prescribed by the medical community and used by patients." More specifically, Mobile Health alleged, "[t]he Marketing Defendants relentlessly and methodically -- but untruthfully -- asserted that the risk of addiction was low when opioids were used to treat chronic pain and overstated the benefits and trivialized the risk of the long-term use of opioids." According to Mobile Health, "[t]he Marketing Defendants' goal was simple: dramatically increase sales by convincing doctors to prescribe opioids not only for the kind of severe pain associated with cancer
or short-term postoperative pain, but also for common chronic pain, such as back pain and arthritis." Mobile Health alleged that this marketing campaign "precipitated" an "opioid crisis" in the United States, and specifically in Alabama, because it caused an astronomical increase in the use of opioids by patients who quickly became dependent upon the drugs. In support of this assertion, Mobile Health cited a multitude of statistics in the complaint, including that
With respect to Abbott's conduct, Mobile Health alleged:
(Emphasis added.)
Mobile Health asserted that it brought this action because of the burdens it has had to bear as a result of the "opioid epidemic."
To continue reading
Request your trial- McBride v. J.L. Bedsole/Rotary Rehab. Hosp. & Mobile Infirmary Ass'n) (Ex parte Mobile Infirmary Ass'n)
-
The Utils. Bd. of Tuskegee v. 3M Co.
... ... 2000) (quoting GSW, Inc. v. Long Cnty. , ... 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir ... a detectable level of PFAS that exceeds health-advisory ... levels announced by the EPA on ... are a family of human-made synthetic chemical compounds that ... containing products without reasonable care. Moreover, UBT ... alleges that Defendants ... date the first legal injury occurs,” Ex parte ... Abbott Lab'ys , 342 So.3d 186, 194 ... flows from the act. City of Mobile v. Havard , 268 ... So.2d 805. 810 (Ala ... 3M and DuPont were either the sole or primary ... manufacturers of certain PFAS, like ... ...