ILNews

AG announced Depakote settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced Monday that Indiana will recoup millions of dollars in two separate settlements of multistate lawsuits against pharmaceutical maker Abbott Laboratories over illegal off-label marketing of its drug, Depakote.

In a case investigated by the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, Indiana will receive $1,978,345 in the settlement with Abbott Laboratories. The Indiana settlement is part of a larger $100 million settlement with 44 other states and the District of Columbia that is the largest consumer protection-based pharmaceutical settlement ever reached.

In a separate action, the AG’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit on Monday joined in a multistate settlement that included the federal government to resolve allegations that Abbott Laboratories engaged in illegal marketing practices involving Depakote that resulted in false claims being submitted to the Medicaid program for reimbursement. Indiana will recover $4,923,742.07 in the Medicaid settlement, as part of a larger $1.5 billion civil and criminal settlement between Abbott and the federal government, 48 other states and the District of Columbia. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the $1.5 billion settlement is the second-largest recovery ever from a pharmaceutical company through a single civil-and-criminal settlement.

“Pharmaceutical companies that illegally market drugs for off-label purposes must be held accountable for their actions and this settlement should serve as a warning to others,” Zoeller said. “The substantial payments to states under these dual agreements and the marketing restrictions imposed will address many concerns identified in the parallel investigations, including prohibiting any false representation of the drug in the future.”

Depakote is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of seizure disorders, mania associated with bipolar disorder and prevention of migraines. While it is not illegal for physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label uses the FDA has not approved, it is unlawful for drug companies to market drugs to doctors, healthcare providers and institutions for unapproved uses.

Additional information about the Depakote complaints is available on the AG’s website.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • How?
    What, when, where, why and how. It would have been interesting to know how Abbott was marketing off label (for what use).

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT