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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT