Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County counsel reports update on opioid litigation; recommends action before noon
Summary
Muscatine County’s representative on opioid litigation told supervisors the case has moved to pharmacy benefit managers and that counsel recommends a response by noon regarding proposed class treatment for claims under $50,000; the board did not record a formal vote on the recommendation at the meeting.
A county representative briefed the Muscatine County Board of Supervisors on the status of national opioid litigation and sought the board’s approval to follow counsel’s recommended response to a new phase of the case.
Why it matters: The county is a member of a class-action process that has already pursued manufacturers, pharmacies and chain stores; the litigation’s treatment of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) could affect potential recoveries distributed to participating governments.
The county representative reported that litigation had progressed to pharmacy benefit managers and said: “They are proposing to lisonbee anybody from the class, for purposes of the lawsuit that's less than $50,000 which Muscatine County would be.” He said that if funds are received, Muscatine County would still participate in distribution, and that he planned to follow counsel’s recommendation; he asked the board for the board’s blessing and said he needed to respond by noon that day.
The transcript records a supervisor saying, “I think that makes sense,” but it does not record a formal vote or further board action on the matter during the portion of the meeting provided.
No amounts, final settlement terms, or definitive opt-in/opt-out instructions were provided in the recorded segment; the county representative described the recommendation as counsel’s litigation strategy and asked for the board’s verbal support to proceed.
