Former J&J medical consultant testifies in OC opioid trial

A former Johnson & Johnson medical consultant admitted Tuesday prescription drug abuse among Americans increased during the time he worked for the company, during a $50 billion opioid bench trial in Orange County.

On cross examination, South Carolina plaintiffs' attorney Frederick Baker of Motley Rice Baker asked Dr. Bruce Moskovitz whether he was aware of a prescription opioid crisis occurring while he was employed as a leading research doctor with Janssen Pharmaceuticals -- a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary -- in the early 2000s.

"I knew there were issues around misuse, abuse and diversion and the frequency increased over time. ... There were papers that referred to it as a crisis. ... I never reduced it to a single word," Moskovitz said. "We were well aware for a period of time the number of Americans that abused prescription drugs were increasing and were increasing over time but this is a general statement about prescription drugs."

"Not just increasing from 1992 to 2003, it doubled, right?" Baker followed up.

After Baker's question, Judge Peter Wilson sustained an objection lodged by Washington, D.C. defense attorney Steve Brody of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

California's false advertising, unfair competition and public nuisance suit accuses Janssen, Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Allergan PLC of fueling an opioid crisis in the state by downplaying the risks of addiction in their marketing. Purdue, perhaps the most often named drug company in thousands of suits filed since 2014, is sitting out the trial, pending the completion of a bankruptcy case in New York.

Janssen's defense case comes after it agreed to a $230 million settlement last month in a similar opioid suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia Ann James.

The state objected to Moskovitz testifying Tuesday, saying he could not be called as a fact witness if his testimony was based on documents given to him by the defense team to review. Moskovitz has already testified on Janssen's behalf in two opioid trials, one in Oklahoma and the multidistrict litigation in Ohio.

Even though he allowed Moskovitz to testify, Judge Peter Wilson said the state raised appropriate concerns.

"A fact witness can testify that a red light turned red because he or she personally saw the light turn red, not because that witness researched documents that said the light turned red," Wilson said.

Despite nearly five hours of direct examination, which Wilson at one point said dipped into irrelevant territory, the judge never let Moskovitz testify that Janssen's opioid and fentanyl products Nucenta and Duragesic were less abused than other prescription drugs, based on data provided to him while employed with Janssen. Wilson said that testimony called for expert opinion, and Moskovitz was not designated to offer such an opinion.

The suit, which is the first government initiated action in the nation seeking to hold opioid manufacturers accountable for their alleged role in creating the opioid epidemic, is being tried remotely before Wilson. It will likely affect some 3,000 settlements in lawsuits filed nationwide by states and municipalities that claim Purdue and other opioid producers fueled an opioid crisis.

In addition to civil penalties, the plaintiff counties of Los Angeles, Orange and Santa Clara, and the city of Oakland seek $50 billion to abate an opioid crisis in their jurisdictions, according to attorneys involved in the lawsuit. People v. Purdue Pharma et al., 14-00725287 (Orange Super. Ct, filed May 21, 2014).