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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT