An Oklahoma judge on Monday found an opioid drugmaker liable for the ongoing epidemic “ravaging” the state, issuing the first ruling in a state lawsuit.

Calling the opioid crisis a “danger and menace” to Oklahomans, Judge Thad Balkman in Norman, Okla. said attorneys for the state had proven their case that Johnson & Johnson and its Belgium subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, helped create an addiction crisis and ordered they pay $572 million as part of an abatement plan.

Judge Balkman ruled that Johnson & Johnson’s misleading marketing created a “public nuisance” that compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans.

“Defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome,” Judge Balkmansaid in court Monday. “The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma. It must be abated immediately.”

Johnson & Johnson, the New Jersey-based medical products company, immediately released a statement saying they planned an appeal.

The judge’s verdict from could set the precedent for the thousands of other lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies across the country.

The $572 million the judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay is a significant decrease from the $17.5 billion over 30 years the state of Oklahoma demanded to abate the crisis.

Judge Balkman did not read from his 42-page ruling in culminating the 8-week trial which saw nearly 50 witnesses brought by the state and Johnson & Johnson. Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals were dropped from the case after reaching multi-million dollar settlements with Oklahoma. </s> NORMAN, Okla. -- An Oklahoma judge is expected to rule Monday in the first state case to go to trial accusing an opioid drugmaker of being responsible for the devastating consequences arising from addiction to the powerful painkillers.Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman is scheduled to deliver his judgment in open court at 3 p.m. The case is at the forefront of a wave of similar lawsuits by states, cities, counties and Indian tribes against drug companies over the wreckage caused by the national opioid crisis.Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter has called consumer products giant Johnson & Johnson, the last remaining defendant group in the case, a "kingpin" company that helped fuel the most devastating public health crisis in the state's history.Before the six-week trial started in late May, Oklahoma reached a $270 million settlement with OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma and an $85 million deal with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd."The judge will probably find in favor of (Oklahoma), but will decline to give it a huge damage award, particularly since Purdue, the real bad boy in all of this, was able to cap its liability at the relatively modest sum of $270 million," said University of Kentucky law professor Richard Ausness, who has written extensively about opioid litigation."Whatever happens, the losing side will probably appeal, so the matter will drag on for several more years."Attorneys for Oklahoma outlined a plan developed by state mental health and addiction specialists to abate the opioid crisis that would range between $12.6 billion for 20 years or $17.5 billion over 30 years.Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson say that estimate is wildly inflated and claim the state is trying to hold the company liable for damages without any evidence that it caused the crisis."Throughout trial our team repeatedly laid waste to the state's case, which it built on misstatements and distortions," John Sparks, local counsel for Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said following closing arguments. "The facts are that Janssen appropriately provided essential pain treatment options to Oklahomans while balancing the inherent risks associated with these medicines." </s> An Oklahoma judge has ruled that drugmaker Johnson & Johnson helped ignite the state's opioid crisis by deceptively marketing painkillers, and must pay $572 million to the state.

Oklahoma sought $17.5 billion, blaming Johnson & Johnson for fueling the crisis that has claimed the lives of more than 6,000 people in the state.

It's the first ruling to hold a pharmaceutical company responsible for one of the worst drug epidemics in American history.

Judge Thad Balkman delivered his decision from the bench, after presiding over a seven-week civil trial in the college town of Norman, Okla.

"The defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma," Judge Balkman said in a statement.

Johnson & Johnson immediately released a statement saying that the company "plans to appeal the opioid judgment in Oklahoma."

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter's suit alleged that Johnson & Johnson, through its pharmaceutical subsidiary Janssen, helped ignite a public health crisis that has killed thousands of state residents.

Balkman's ruling affirmed the key legal argument of the state's case, that the drugmaker had created a "public nuisance."

"The state met its burden," Balkman said in his comments, proving the company acted improperly with its "misleading marketing and promotion of opioids."

"This is a temporary public nuisance that can be abated and the proper remedy for the public nuisance is equitable abatement," he said.

The amount Balkman ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay falls far short of the $17.5 billion state officials requested, but in his ruling he acknowledged the cost of the recovery effort will be much larger.

Indeed, according to estimates detailed in this decision, the company's $572 million payment would only only fund Oklahoma's opioid recovery plan for a single year.

"Though several of the state's witnesses testified that the plan will take at least 20 years to work," Judge Balkman wrote, "the state did not present sufficient evidence of the amount of time and costs necessary beyond year one to abate the opioid crisis."

That portion of the ruling took some observers by surprise.

"If Johnson & Johnson is responsible for the opioid epidemic as a long-term problem, why only provide enough money for one year?" says Richard Ausness who teaches law at the University of Kentucky and follows opioid litigation closely.

Judge Balkman declined to answer questions about the ruling.

Johnson & Johnson argues that the facts don't support the judge's finding.

"This judgment is a misapplication of public nuisance law that has already been rejected by judges in other states," said Michael Ullmann, executive vice president, general counsel for Johnson & Johnson, in a statement. "The unprecedented award for the state's 'abatement plan' has sweeping ramifications for many industries and bears no relation to the company's medicines or conduct."

Attorney General Hunter celebrated the state's win, despite the discrepancy between the $572 million award and the billions the state had asked for.

"It's going to be an important step forward in dealing with the epidemic," he told reporters. "Certainly we would have liked to walk out of here with $17 billion, but realistically we've been able to get together almost a billion dollars to help Oklahoma."

Initially, Hunter's lawsuit included Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. In March, Purdue Pharma settled with the state for $270 million. Soon after, Hunter dropped all but one of the civil claims, including fraud, against the two remaining defendants.

Just two days before the trial began, another defendant, Teva Pharmaceuticals of Jerusalem, announced an $85 million settlement with the state.

Johnson & Johnson marketed the opioid painkillers Duragesic and Nucynta. Lawyers for the company say its products were highly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, among other agencies, and that the state did not provide any evidence showing the company's sales practices helped fuel the crisis. It argued these branded opioid products made up less than 1% of total opioid prescriptions in Oklahoma.

As NPR reported in July, during the trial the state's expert witness, Dr. Andrew Kolodny, testified that Johnson & Johnson also profited by manufacturing raw ingredients for opioids and then selling them to other companies, including Purdue, which makes Oxycontin.

Speaking on behalf of Janssen and Johnson & Johnson Monday, attorney Sabrina Strong told reporters that "litigation is not the answer" to the opioid crisis.

"Johnson & Johnson did not cause the opioid crisis. Although it includes some diversion of prescription medicine, it's largely driven by illegally manufactured drugs that are coming into the country from Mexico and elsewhere," she said.

The case is being closely watched by plaintiffs in other opioid lawsuits, particularly the roughly 2,000 cases in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation which is pending before a federal judge in Ohio. That consolidated lawsuit includes 22 defendants — opioid manufacturers and distributors, including Johnson & Johnson.

In a statement, the co-lead plaintiff attorneys of the Ohio litigation called today's ruling a "milestone," saying the ruling in favor of Oklahoma's public nuisance claims is a "critical step forward" for the communities they represent.

"The ruling in favor of the State of Oklahoma's public nuisance claims confirms what communities have been saying for some time: the opioid epidemic significantly interfered with public health," said the attorneys, Paul T. Farrell Jr., Paul J. Hanly, Jr., and Joseph F. Rice.



The first court ruling in a wave of lawsuits against the drug industry was decided today. A state judge in Oklahoma ruled that Johnson & Johnson should pay more than $570 million to help ease that state's opioid addiction crisis. The state had asked for as much as 17 billion from the company.

North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann joins me now via Skype to talk about this decision.

KELLY: So the judge here, Judge Balkman - what did he say about Johnson & Johnson? How did he explain this ruling?

MANN: You know, he was very measured, very professional in tone but, at the same time, really laid out a devastating view of Johnson & Johnson's behavior here, concluding that the company used misleading marketing pushing the sale of these addictive opioid medications. Here he is speaking from the bench.

THAD BALKMAN: Defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma.

MANN: And so he concluded that it's the company's responsibility to pay roughly half a billion dollars to help solve this public health crisis.

KELLY: So half a billion dollars - obviously a lot less than the $17 billion Oklahoma was looking for. Is there some way to view this as at least a partial win for Johnson & Johnson?

MANN: Yeah. Johnson & Johnson signaled that that's not how they view it by announcing immediately that they'll appeal this decision. And the reason it's not good - a good sign for the company is, first, that this ruling is, for one, relatively small, a relatively low-population state. So when you multiply their possible liability over the entire U.S. that's been hit by this addiction epidemic, the dollar figures could run into many billions of dollars.

Another problem for Johnson & Johnson is that their argument here that government regulators and doctors were the ones more directly at fault in this epidemic - you know, those arguments just didn't work in this courtroom. And so it's going to be interesting to see how that plays going forward. But, again, Johnson & Johnson says they will keep fighting this going forward.

KELLY: Do we know, in the meantime, how Oklahoma plans to spend the money?

MANN: So there was a new state law pushed through in Oklahoma just this summer that basically mandates that any money - if this does survive appeal, any money will go into the state's general fund, and that means lawmakers and the governor will decide how it's spent.

And this could get messy, you know, and controversial. People worry that this opioid money could be diverted in the same way that tobacco money was often diverted back in the 1990s. Addiction advocates, of course, hope to see a lot of this money go to communities and to families that have been hit hard by this epidemic.

KELLY: And in the short moments we have left, Brian, you flagged there what this might mean for Johnson & Johnson going forward. What about, you know, all these 2,000 local and state governments that have filed similar lawsuits? What signal might this send about liability across the industry?

MANN: Yeah. This is really a powerful moment when all of these companies have to really look at what their potential exposure could be. This has been a devastating year for the pharmaceutical industry. A lot of information has come out about their practices, much of it really unsavory.

And there are a lot more of these trials just kind of queued up to the horizon, including a big federal trial in Oklahoma (ph). The federal judge there, Dan Polster, has been pushing the industry to try to reach a big national settlement.

KELLY: And we will see what happens there. Brian Mann, I'm going to have to leave it there.

Thanks so much.

MANN: All right, thank you. </s> An Oklahoma judge on Monday ruled against Johnson & Johnson in the first trial of an opioid manufacturer, ordering the company to pay the state $572 million for its role in the nationwide epidemic.

“The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and menace to Oklahomans,” said Judge Thad Balkman in Cleveland County District Court, CNBC reports. “The state meant its burden that the defendants Janssen and Johnson & Johnson’s misleading marketing and promotion of opioids created a nuisance as defined by [the law], including a finding that those actions compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans.”

Johnson & Johnson plans to appeal the decision. The company was the only remaining defendant in the case, which began on May 28th. Teva Pharmaceutical and Purdue Pharma, the widely criticized maker of OxyContin — both of whom denied wrongdoing — reached settlements with the state before the trial (Teva for $85 million, Purdue for $270 million).

The state argued that, dating back to the 1990s, Johnson & Johnson and pharmaceutical subsidiary Janssen aggressively marketed its opioids to doctors while downplaying the associated risks. According to the New York Times, Johnson & Johnson imported 60 percent of the opiate materials that were used to manufacture opioids in the U.S., while Janssen made an opioid pill and a fentanyl patch. “Defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome,” Balkman ruled.

Throughout the seven-week trial, Oklahoma’s attorneys characterized Johnson & Johnson as the “kingpin” of the opioid epidemic, creating an abundance of addictive painkillers and causing a “public nuisance” that could cost the state upwards of $17.8 billion, Politico reports.

While the legal fallout remains to be seen, the Oklahoma ruling could set a precedent for future cases, including more than 2,000 similar lawsuits already filed across the county. </s> NORMAN, Okla. -- An Oklahoma judge on Monday found Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries helped fuel the state's opioid crisis and ordered the consumer products giant to pay $572 million to clean up the problem.Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman's ruling followed the first state opioid case to make it to trial and could help shape negotiations over roughly 1,500 similar lawsuits filed by state, local and tribal governments consolidated before a federal judge in Ohio."The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma," Balkman said before announcing the verdict. "It must be abated immediately."The companies are expected to appeal the ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.Before Oklahoma's trial began May 28, Oklahoma reached settlements with two other defendant groups - a $270 million deal with OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma and an $85 million settlement with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.Oklahoma argued the companies and their subsidiaries created a public nuisance by launching an aggressive and misleading marketing campaign that overstated how effective the drugs were for treating chronic pain and understated the risk of addiction. Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter says opioid overdoses killed 4,653 people in the state from 2007 to 2017.Mike Hunter has called Johnson & Johnson a "kingpin" company that was motivated by greed. He specifically pointed to two former Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids, which produced much of the raw opium used by other manufacturers to produce the drugs."They've been the principal origin for the active pharmaceutical ingredient in prescription opioids in the country for the last two decades," Hunter said after the trial ended July 15. "It is one of the most important elements of causation with regard to why the defendants ... are responsible for the epidemic in the country and in Oklahoma."Attorneys for the company have maintained they were part of a lawful and heavily regulated industry subject to strict federal oversight, including the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, during every step of the supply chain. Lead attorney Larry Ottaway said during closing arguments that opioid drugs serve a critical health need - to address chronic pain that affects thousands of Oklahomans every day."This problem of untreated chronic pain afflicts people here in Oklahoma," Ottaway said.Oklahoma pursued the case under the state's public nuisance statute and presented the judge with a plan to abate the crisis that would cost between $12.6 billion for 20 years and $17.5 billion over 30 years. Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson have said that estimate is wildly inflated.Also on Monday, the Kentucky Supreme Court declined to review an earlier ruling, making previously secret testimony from former Purdue Pharma President Rickard Sackler and other documents public. The court record was sealed in 2015 as part of a $24 million settlement between Purdue and Kentucky.The 17 million pages of documents were being shipped Monday from Frankfort to Pike County, where the case originated. The Pike County Circuit Court Clerk's office could not immediately say how and when they would be available. </s> A judge in Oklahoma has found Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries helped fuel the state’s opioid crisis and ordered the consumer products giant to pay 572 million US dollars (£469m).

Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman’s ruling followed the first state opioid case to make it to trial and could help shape negotiations over roughly 1,500 similar lawsuits filed by state, local and tribal governments consolidated before a federal judge in Ohio.

“The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma,” Mr Balkman said before announcing the verdict.

The companies are expected to appeal against the ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Before Oklahoma’s trial began on May 28, Oklahoma reached settlements with two other defendant groups — a 270 million-dollar (£221m) deal with OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma and an 85 million-dollar (£69m) settlement with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Oklahoma argued the companies and their subsidiaries created a public nuisance by launching an aggressive and misleading marketing campaign that overstated how effective the drugs were for treating chronic pain and understated the risk of addiction.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter says opioid overdoses killed 4,653 people in the state from 2007 to 2017.

Mr Hunter has called Johnson & Johnson a “kingpin” company that was motivated by greed.

He specifically pointed to two former Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids, which produced much of the raw opium used by other manufacturers to produce the drugs.

“They’ve been the principal origin for the active pharmaceutical ingredient in prescription opioids in the country for the last two decades,” Mr Hunter said after the trial ended on July 15.

“It is one of the most important elements of causation with regard to why the defendants… are responsible for the epidemic in the country and in Oklahoma.”

Lawyers for the company have maintained they were part of a lawful and heavily regulated industry subject to strict federal oversight, including the US Drug Enforcement Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, during every step of the supply chain.

Lawyers for the company said the judgment was a misapplication of public nuisance law.

Sabrina Strong, a lawyer for Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, said the companies have sympathy for those who suffer from substance abuse but called the judge’s decision “flawed”.

“You can’t sue your way out of the opioid abuse crisis,” Ms Strong said.

“Litigation is not the answer.”

Oklahoma pursued the case under the state’s public nuisance statute and presented the judge with a plan to abate the crisis that would cost between 12.6 billion dollars for 20 years and 17.5 billion dollars over 30 years.

Lawyers for Johnson & Johnson have said that estimate is wildly inflated. </s> Oklahoma (US): An Oklahoma judge on Monday found Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries helped fuel the state's opioid crisis and ordered the consumer products giant to pay $572 million, more than twice the amount another drug manufacturer agreed to pay in a settlement.

Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman's ruling followed the first state opioid case to make it to trial and could help shape negotiations over roughly 1,500 similar lawsuits filed by state, local and tribal governments consolidated before a federal judge in Ohio.

"The opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma," Balkman said before announcing the judgment. "It must be abated immediately."

An attorney for the companies said they plan to appeal the ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Before Oklahoma's trial began May 28, the state reached settlements with two other defendant groups — a $270 million deal with OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma and an $85 million settlement with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Oklahoma argued the companies and their subsidiaries created a public nuisance by launching an aggressive and misleading marketing campaign that overstated how effective the drugs were for treating chronic pain and understated the risk of addiction. Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter says opioid overdoses killed 4,653 people in the state from 2007 to 2017.

Hunter called Johnson & Johnson a "kingpin" company that was motivated by greed. He specifically pointed to two former Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids, which produced much of the raw opium used by other manufacturers to produce the drugs.

On Monday, Hunter said the Oklahoma case could provide a "road map" for other states to follow in holding drugmakers responsible for the opioid crisis.

"That's the message to other states: We did it in Oklahoma. You can do it elsewhere," Hunter said. "Johnson & Johnson will finally be held accountable for thousands of deaths and addictions caused by their activities."

Among those seated in the courtroom on Monday were Craig and Gail Box, whose son Austin was a 22-year-old standout linebacker for the Oklahoma Sooners when he died of a prescription drug overdose in 2011. One of the attorneys for the state, Reggie Whitten, said he also lost a son to opioid abuse.

"I feel like my boy is looking down," Whitten said after the judge's ruling, his voice cracking with emotion.

Oklahoma pursued the case under the state's public nuisance statute and presented the judge with a plan to abate the crisis that would cost between $12.6 billion for 20 years and $17.5 billion over 30 years. Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson have said that estimate is wildly inflated. The judge's award would cover the costs of one year of the state's abatement plan, funding things like opioid use prevention and addiction treatment.

Attorneys for the company have maintained they were part of a lawful and heavily regulated industry subject to strict federal oversight, including the US Drug Enforcement Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, during every step of the supply chain. Lawyers for the company said the judgment was a misapplication of public nuisance law.

Sabrina Strong, an attorney for Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, said the companies have sympathy for those who suffer from substance abuse but called the judge's decision "flawed."

"You can't sue your way out of the opioid abuse crisis," Strong said. "Litigation is not the answer."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the cases consolidated before a federal judge in Ohio called the Oklahoma judgment "a milestone amid the mounting evidence against the opioid pharmaceutical industry."

"While public nuisance laws differ in every state, this decision is a critical step forward for the more than 2,000 cities, counties, and towns we represent in the consolidation of federal opioid cases," they said in a statement.

Also on Monday, the Kentucky Supreme Court declined to review an earlier ruling , making previously secret testimony from former Purdue Pharma President Rickard Sackler and other documents public. The court record was sealed in 2015 as part of a $24 million settlement between Purdue and Kentucky.

The 17 million pages of documents were being shipped Monday from Frankfort to Pike County, where the case originated. The Pike County Circuit Court Clerk's office could not immediately say how and when they would be available.

Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you – in real time.

Subscribe to Moneycontrol Pro and gain access to curated markets data, trading recommendations, equity analysis, investment ideas, insights from market gurus and much more. Get Moneycontrol PRO for 1 year at price of 3 months. Use code FREEDOM. </s> Judge Orders Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $572 million for role in opioid crisis

An Oklahoma judge has ruled that the corporate giant Johnson & Johnson must pay more than $572 million for the role they played in the state's opioid epidemic, which officials say has killed over 6,000 Oklahomans over nearly 20 years.

The state's Attorney General, Mike Hunter, said that Johnson & Johnson, as well as their pharmaceutical subsidiary (Janssen) pushed painkiller opioids to doctors while simultaenously downplaying their addictiveness, dating all the way back to the 1990s. According to the state, this attempt to increase sales qualifies as a "public nuisance" that has killed thousands of their residents over the past two decades.

Johnson & Johnson disputed that characterization from opposing attorneys, while their own attorney (John Sparks) said that the application of the public nuisance law had been misinterpreted, and said it was previously limited to legal disputes over property or public spaces. The exact total the company is required to pay is $572,102,028.

The ruling may also establish a precedent for more than 2,000 pending opioid cases against a number of pharmaceutical companies who may instead opt to settle.

This past March Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin, reached a $270 million settlement with the Oklahoma attorney general's office. Another company, Teva Pharmaceutical, settled with the state for $85 million just days before going to trial. Despite shelling out those large figures, both companies maintain they did nothing wrong.

Hunter had been pushing for Johnson & Johnson to pony up $17 billion to the state, which would then be allocated for addiction treatment and overall prevention over the course of the next three decades. As the trial waged on, Hunter said Johnson & Johnson, as well as other similar companies, tried to rush out a "magic pill" to bank quick profits while ignoring the scientifically established danger of opiods.

“We’ve shown that J&J was at the root cause of this opioid crisis,” said Oklahoma lead attorney Brad Beckworth, according to The New York Times. “It made billions of dollars from it over a 20-year period. They’ve always denied responsibility and yet at the same time they say they want to make a difference in solving this problem. So do the right thing: come in here, pay the judgment.”

In December 2018 a St. Louis, Missouri jury found that Johnson & Johnson should pay $4.7 billion because their baby powder caused cancer in some consumers, though no verdict of that size has ever survived appeal. In 2018 Johnson and Johnson had sales worth $81.6 billion. </s> A US judge last night ordered pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson to pay £470MILLION for fuelling a deadly "opiate crisis".

Oklahoma District Judge Thad Balkman agreed J&J may have been responsible for some of the 6,000 painkiller overdoses in the state since 2000.

Judge Balkman, the Cleveland County magistrate, ruled that the multinational should pay a $572m (£468m) settlement in compensation.

Johnson & Johnson manufactures household products like baby powder and cotton buds as well as prescription pharmaceuticals.

Among its drugs are powerful and addictive painkillers known as opiates.

Opiates have been involved in as many as 400,000 overdose deaths in the US from 1999 to 2017, according to US health authorities.

Judge Balkman ruled in favour of prosecutors who claimed J&J and its subsidiaries flooded the market with the dangerous drugs.

He wrote: "The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and menace to Oklahomans.

"Defendants' opioid marketing, in its multitude of forms, was false, deceptive and misleading."

The US company, worth £280billion, deliberately and aggressively marketed its drugs as wonder-cures for chronic pain, it was alleged.

And prosecutors also argued that J&J underplayed the risk of addiction to patients.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter called Johnson & Johnson a "kingpin" company that was motivated by greed.

He pointed to two former J&J subsidiaries - Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids - which produced much of the raw opium used by other manufacturers to produce the drugs.

The cost to Oklahoma state authorities to address the damage caused by opiate abuse will top $17.5bn (£14.3bn) over 30 years, prosecutors argued.

Agreeing with the state's case, Judge Balkman blasted the company for its role in the "opiod crisis" that has "ravaged the state of Oklahoma."

He added: "It must be abated immediately."

The landmark ruling - which could have far-ranging consequences to the US drugs market - concludes a sometimes emotional three-month trial.

One of the attorneys for the state, Reggie Whitten, said he also lost a son to opioid abuse.

Holding back tears, Mr Whitten said after the judge's ruling: "I feel like my boy is looking down."

Among those seated in the courtroom on Monday were Craig and Gail Box.

Their son Austin was a 22-year-old linebacker for the Oklahoma Sooners when he died of a prescription drug overdose in 2011.

Judge Balkman's verdict followed the first state opioid case to make it to trial.

It could help shape negotiations over roughly 1,500 similar lawsuits that have been lumped together before a federal judge in Ohio.

Mr Hunter said the Oklahoma case could provide a "road map" for other states to follow in holding drugmakers responsible.

He added: "That's the message to other states: We did it in Oklahoma. You can do it elsewhere.

"Johnson & Johnson will finally be held accountable for thousands of deaths and addictions caused by their activities."

Attorney's for Johnson & Johnson said they would appeal the ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

In a lengthy statement, J&J said that it operates lawfully as part of a heavily regulated industry.

Sabrina Strong, an attorney for Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, said the companies have sympathy for those who suffer from substance abuse - but called the judge's decision "flawed."

She added: "You can't sue your way out of the opioid abuse crisis. Litigation is not the answer."

And they agreed an $85 million deal with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368. You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.
An Oklahoma district court finds Johnson & Johnson liable for exacerbating opioid addiction in the state, and fines them US$572 million. The company announces it will appeal.