Corp. counsel reports opioid settlement, treasurer ruling and medical‑examiner MOU
Loading...
Summary
County corp. counsel told the committee a settlement was signed in the national opioid case with six remnant defendants, the circuit court granted summary judgment confirming Kim Meinhardt as treasurer (not Cara Dozle) with a May 22 hearing to consider damages, and an MOU to share medical examiner duties with neighboring counties was drafted.
The county's corporate counsel provided several legal updates at the committee meeting, including a signed settlement in the national opioid litigation, court rulings in a treasurer dispute and work on a memorandum of understanding to share medical examiner coverage with neighboring counties.
Corp. counsel said Cynthia signed a settlement agreement this month with six "remnant defendants" in the national opioid case — smaller pharmacies — and that it will take time to determine how much the county will eventually receive.
On an incompatibility‑of‑office case, counsel said the circuit court granted the county's motion for summary judgment and concluded that Cara Dozle is not the treasurer and that Kim Meinhardt is the treasurer; a hearing is scheduled for May 22 to decide whether Dozle owes Meinhardt or the county any damages.
"They are asking to go back to I believe it's 1972. It's it's extremely ludicrous what they're asking," the corp. counsel said when describing plaintiffs' requests in related cases, and added that defense firms expect recoveries would not reach that far and that statute‑of‑limitations arguments (counsel referenced a six‑year period) are expected to limit exposure.
Counsel also described drafting a memorandum of understanding that would allow neighboring counties to provide temporary medical examiner coverage in cases such as vacations or other absences; reimbursement would be at the rate the sending county pays its personnel, counsel said.
The committee asked for updates when court dates pass; corp. counsel said there is a motion hearing April 14 related to Elliott v. State of Wisconsin that touches on many county cases and that additional information will be provided at the next meeting.
