Oklahoma judge orders Johnson & Johnson to pay $572M in opioid suit – let our experts help with your coverage.

Aug 28, 2019

1 min

It was a historic decision yesterday that may play a role in America’s opioid crisis.


"On Monday, Cleveland County Judge Thad Balkman made his judgment in the lawsuit brought by the Oklahoma attorney general against the company for what the state alleges it did to fuel the U.S. opioid crisis.


In reading out his settlement decision, Balman said that "the opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma." The nine-figure settlement, while hefty, pales in comparison to what the attorney general's office originally asked for, as they reportedly asked for in excess of $17 billion in damages.” August 26 – ABC News


  • But what will this decision mean for the future of big-pharma?
  • What will the money go to?
  • Can or should companies be held accountable for addictions?


There are a lot of questions and logistics still to be figured out and if you are a reporter covering this lawsuit – let our experts help.


Dr. Marc Sweeney is the Founding Dean of the School of Pharmacy at Cedarville University and is an expert in the fields of drug abuse, prescription drug abuse and Opioid addiction. Justin Cole is an expert in clinical pharmacy, Pharmacogenomics, and the pharmacy industry. Marc and Justin and has been following this issue closely and is available to speak with media. Simply click on their icons to arrange an interview with either Marc or Justin.



Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Cedarville University

From the Pump to the Bond Market: Why Rising Oil Prices Matter for Borrowing Costs featured image

2 min

From the Pump to the Bond Market: Why Rising Oil Prices Matter for Borrowing Costs

From the Pump to the Bond Market: Why Rising Oil Prices Matter for Borrowing Costs Rising oil prices are often felt first at the gas pump, but their effects can quickly extend to the broader economy. As higher costs for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel work their way through transportation, manufacturing and food production, investors are increasingly concerned that inflation could remain elevated longer than expected. That concern is helping push Treasury yields higher. When investors expect inflation to erode the future value of fixed-income returns, they typically demand higher yields on government bonds. The result can be a ripple effect across the economy: mortgage rates, auto loans, credit-card rates and business borrowing costs may all remain high or move higher. This is an important second stage of the oil-price story. The first concern is the direct impact on consumers and businesses as energy costs rise. The next concern is whether those higher costs become embedded in the economy, causing inflation expectations to increase and making it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to ease interest rates. For policymakers, the dilemma is clear. Raising or maintaining higher interest rates can help slow inflation, but it also makes borrowing more expensive for families, businesses and the federal government. If high energy prices persist, the Federal Reserve may face added pressure to prioritize inflation control even as consumers and employers feel the effects of tighter financial conditions. The issue is also global. Oil markets respond quickly to geopolitical instability and supply disruptions, while Treasury yields influence borrowing and investment decisions far beyond the United States. Together, high energy prices and rising yields can become a powerful test of economic resilience—affecting household budgets today and financial decisions for months to come. 

White House Pushes Back on Calls for Broader AI Safety Guardrails featured image

1 min

White House Pushes Back on Calls for Broader AI Safety Guardrails

As calls grow from technology leaders, researchers and lawmakers for stronger artificial intelligence safety rules, the White House is signaling a different priority: keeping the United States at the forefront of AI innovation. The administration has pushed back on proposals that could slow development or create sweeping federal approval requirements for new models, arguing that excessive regulation could weaken America’s competitive position—especially against China. That does not mean the administration is ignoring AI-related risks. Its approach emphasizes national security, cybersecurity and enforcement against criminal misuse of AI. Recent White House action has encouraged voluntary collaboration between government and AI developers to assess the cyber capabilities of advanced models, protect critical infrastructure and strengthen defenses against malicious actors. But the framework specifically avoids mandatory licensing or government preclearance before companies develop or release new AI systems. The debate raises important questions for business leaders, policymakers and the public: How can innovation move quickly without sacrificing security, privacy and public trust? And where should responsibility rest—within individual companies, through voluntary government-industry partnerships or through enforceable federal safeguards? 

View all posts