In a pivotal legal development, a federal judge has fine-tuned the scope of the U.S. government’s lawsuit implicating Walmart in the opioid crisis, offering a mixed bag of decisions. The ruling, delivered by Chief U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly in Delaware, marks a significant juncture in the contentious battle between the retail giant and the Justice Department.
Among the key points of contention, the judge opted to dismiss allegations accusing Walmart of neglecting to report suspicious prescription drug orders to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Additionally, a claim asserting that Walmart pharmacists failed to document “red flags” linked to prescriptions was also set aside.
However, a crucial claim managed to navigate through the legal quagmire. Judge Connolly permitted the assertion that Walmart pharmacists dispensed prescriptions, knowingly deemed invalid by the company’s compliance personnel, to proceed further. Notably, another claim implicating pharmacists who allegedly dispensed prescriptions they themselves recognized as invalid remains unresolved, as it wasn’t part of Walmart’s dismissal motion.
In response to the ruling, Walmart issued a statement reaffirming its stance, portraying the lawsuit as misguided and misinterpretive of legal statutes. The company expressed concerns about the repercussions of the surviving claim, highlighting potential encroachments on the doctor-patient relationship.
Conversely, the U.S. Department of Justice opted not to provide commentary on the recent judicial developments.
The genesis of the legal feud dates back to December 2020, when the Justice Department lodged accusations against Walmart, asserting recurrent violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) dating back to 2013. Central to the government’s argument was Walmart’s purported failure to report suspicious opioid orders to the DEA, amounting to hundreds of thousands of unreported instances, as alleged.
However, Judge Connolly’s ruling unveiled critical nuances in the legal landscape. He underscored that the CSA didn’t mandate such reporting obligations until its 2018 amendment, a timeline that coincided with Walmart’s cessation of distributing controlled substances through its wholesale distribution centers.
Moreover, Connolly emphasized that mere lapses in scrutinizing and documenting prescription-related “red flags” weren’t inherently actionable under the CSA, citing textual interpretations of the law.
The lawsuit against Walmart is emblematic of the government’s broader crackdown on corporate entities ensnared in the opioid epidemic. Notable among these is Purdue Pharma, which, in 2020, admitted to criminal culpability in the mismanagement of OxyContin, a potent painkiller. Similarly, drug wholesaler Cencora, formerly known as AmerisourceBergen, has faced legal scrutiny over its role in fueling the crisis.
For Walmart, the legal saga isn’t isolated. In 2022, the retail behemoth reached a $3.1 billion settlement with numerous state and local governments, seeking redress for its purported involvement in exacerbating the opioid epidemic.
As the legal wrangling ensues, the overarching tragedy of the opioid crisis persists. With nearly 645,000 lives lost to opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2021, the crisis shows no signs of abating, as per preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The case, titled United States v. Walmart et al, continues to unfold in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, under the legal purview of attorneys Amanda Liskamm representing the government and Yaakov Roth from Jones Day, among others, defending Walmart’s interests.
