Most Active Stories
- Poll On Arkansas Ballot Issues Shows Mixed Results
- Arkansas Supreme Court Clears Way For Alcohol Ballot Measure
- National Analysts Weigh In On Arkansas Governor And Senate Races
- Event Celebrates Life Of Poet & Author Maya Angelou In SW Arkansas
- Federal Judge Sets Hearing On Arkansas Same-Sex Marriage Case
Local & Regional News
Thu April 24, 2014
AG: Supreme Court Ruling On Risperdal Increases Risk For Malpractice
The Arkansas Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for rehearing in a case brought by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel could threaten all pending and future litigation in the state, McDaniel said Thursday.
Earlier this month, the state’s high court tossed a $1.2 billion judgment against Johnson & Johnson in a Medicaid fraud case involving the drug Risperdal. Thursday justices refused a request by the Attorney General to reconsider.
The Supreme Court ruling overturned a lower court determination. The 4-3 decision declared that the state misapplied a Medicaid fraud law because the Arkansas Code Revision Commission “substantively altered” changes to a law that was codified 21 years ago.
He suggested that lawyers must now research original acts and legislative intent versus reading what is in the published legal code.
“The rationale used by the court was completely new and foreign to the case,” McDaniel said in a lengthier interview to air Sunday morning on KATV Channel 7′s Talk Business & Politics. “They now create in every case in Arkansas the potential risk of malpractice for lawyers because they say you can no longer trust what’s printed in the law books.”
McDaniel said the code revision system does not need to change.
“The system is perfectly formulated. The Code Revision Commission is authorized by law, they’re reviewed by the General Assembly. They have linguistics experts and a team of lawyers. Everything they did was perfectly appropriate,” he said.
With the petition for rehearing denied by the Arkansas Supreme Court – also by a 4-3 decision – McDaniel said there are no more legal avenues to pursue and the court interpretation undermines more than 170 years of precedent.
“The Arkansas Supreme Court has the reputation of being a results-oriented court. They get whatever result they want when they craft the law to match what they want done,” McDaniel said. “In this case, they came up with something that no one even argued. It undercuts the credibility of our court and it completely takes away from the Attorney General the ability to ever go after a drug manufacturer no matter what they did or how guilty they are. In this case, the drug manufacturer pleaded guilty to a federal felony and paid $2.2 billion in fines and I’m told we’re never allowed to prosecute them or anyone else.”