Expert witness: Johnson & Johnson's role in opioid crisis may be 'worse' than Purdue's

An expert testified in an ongoing Oklahoma lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson suggested that the company may have had an even greater role in the opioid crisis than Purdue Pharma, CNN reported Tuesday.

"Until I had an opportunity to review discovery documents…I really was not aware of how bad Johnson & Johnson was," commented Andrew Kolodny, co-director of the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative at Brandeis University.

In the lawsuit, Oklahoma argued that Johnson & Johnson's Tasmanian Alkaloids and Noramco subsidiaries "created, grew, imported and supplied to [Johnson & Johnson] and its other co-conspirators, including Purdue, the narcotic raw materials necessary to manufacture the opioid pain medications thrust upon the unsuspecting public since the 1990s."

Kolodny contended that said Johnson & Johnson differentiated itself from other companies because of its key role in all three types of opioids, namely natural, semi-synthetic and synthetic opioids.

"The testimony of [Kolodny] was filled with rampant speculation and conclusions not derived from facts," countered defence attorney John Sparks, continuing "the evidence remains that Johnson & Johnson and its former subsidiaries appropriately and responsibly met all laws and regulations on the manufacturing, sale and distribution of active pharmaceutical ingredients and pharmaceutical products."

Oklahoma previously entered into settlements of $270 million with Purdue Pharma and $85 million with Teva over similar claims.