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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT