A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Walgreens is liable for contributing to San Francisco’s opioid epidemic, finding that the company was responsible for public nuisance arising from dispensing prescriptions.
The plaintiffs, the City and County of San Francisco, alleged the pharmacy has caused public nuisance and contributed to the problems caused by opioid addiction, including homelessness. The bench trial was heard by Judge Charles Breyer at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
“Walgreens’ conduct in dispensing opioids—not the opioids themselves—is the fundamental cause of the harm here,” Breyer wrote in the court decision, which cited several cases, including the 2-1 federal appellate decision in Ileto v. Glock, 349 F.3d 1191, 1210 (9th Cir. 2003).
Breyer acknowledged how, “courts in other jurisdictions have expressed concerns about ‘extending the law of nuisance to the sale or distribution of opioids[.]’” He also found those courts interpreted nuisance law to be applicable when there is interference with public property or resources.
“Unlike nuisance law in other states, ‘California law has never imposed such a requirement that there be some form of injury to land or property[.]’” Breyer’s ruling states.
Walgreens has said it plans to appeal.
“We are disappointed with this outcome,” Fraser Engerman, Walgreens senior director, external relations, said in an email response to the Northern California Record. “The facts and the law do not support the court’s decision.”
The two-month bench trial before Judge Breyer, who is the brother of retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, concluded in late June.
“As we have said throughout this process, we never manufactured or marketed opioids, nor did we distribute them to the ‘pill mills’ and internet pharmacies that fueled this crisis,” Engerman said. “We stand behind the professionalism and integrity of our pharmacists, dedicated healthcare professionals who live in the communities they serve.”
Monetary penalty would be determined in a separate proceeding.
“The plaintiff’s attempt to resolve the opioid crisis with an unprecedented expansion of public nuisance law is misguided and unsustainable,” Engerman said. “We look forward to the opportunity to address these issues on appeal.”