MADISON, Wis. - (Mealey's) The Wisconsin
Supreme Court on June 22 affirmed a $13.5 million verdict and judgment against
Pharmacia Corp. for reporting inflated drug prices and causing the state
Medicaid program to overpay, an appeal that stayed the state's cases against 25
other drug company defendants (State of Wisconsin v. Abbott Laboratories, et
al., No. 2010AP232-AC, Wis. Sup.; 2012 Wis. LEXIS 359; See 10/7/10, Page
(Opinion available. Document #28-120712-002Z.)
In 2004, the Wisconsin
attorney general sued 22 brand-name and generic drug defendants and their
subsidiaries in the Dane County Circuit Court, alleging that since about 1992,
they provided drug price publisher First DataBank with inflated average wholesale
prices for their drugs, actions that resulted in the state's Medicaid program
overpaying for the medications. One defendant was Pharmacia, a subsidiary
of Pfizer Inc.
The case against Pharmacia
went to trial, and in 2009 a jury awarded the state $2 million for violations
of the state Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and $7 million for violations
of the state Medicaid fraud statute. The jury also found that Pharmacia
committed 1,440,000 separate violations of the Medicaid fraud statute.
proceedings, Judge Richard G. Niess vacated the jury's answer to the verdict
form question about the number of violations, and the judge separately
determined that there were only 4,578 violations. The judge assessed a
forfeiture of $1,000 for each violation, for a total of $4,578,000.
3 Questions Certified
Both sides appealed, and the
Wisconsin Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the state
Supreme Court: whether the state was entitled to a jury trial as opposed
to a bench trial, whether the damages were based on impermissible speculation
by the jury and whether the Circuit Court properly reduced the number of
The first appeal issue was
Pharmacia's argument that the state did not have a constitutional right to a
jury trial and that the case instead should have been tried in a bench
trial. The state argued that that the DTPA claim is an essential
counterpart to the common law claim of cheating.
In a 4-0-3 ruling, the
Supreme Court rejected Pharmacia's argument that the divergence between the
elements of the DTPA and common law cheating is so significant as to exclude a
jury trial on the former. It found that the cause of action under the
DTPA was recognized under common law when the Wisconsin Constitution was adopted
in 1848 and passes case law tests.
The high court said it would
be "illogical for us to confine a jury trial right to only those fraud statutes
which mimic the common law as it was in 1848, when the common law in 1848 could
not imagine many of the contexts in which fraud operates today. We
decline to rest an important constitutional right on historical vicissitude."
Jury Award Not Speculative
The high court rejected
Pharmacia's argument that the jury's $9 million award was impermissibly
speculative. "The jury's damage award of $9 million reflected the State's
request for an award in approximately that amount," the court wrote.
"The request in turn
reflected the State's position, communicated through expert testimony and
reiterated at closing argument, that approximately $9 million represented the
amount of money Medicaid would have saved had it received, and used, actual
wholesale prices," the court wrote. It said "there was plentiful evidence
from a wide range of credible witnesses with extensive experience in the field
to substantiate the State's argument that the legislature would have reduced
brand drug reimbursements to reflect actual wholesale prices had Pharmacia offered
Pharmacia argued that the
state knew that published wholesale drug prices were inaccurate and that the
state used its own political process to adjust how much states would reimburse
pharmacies for prescriptions written for Medicaid recipients. The high
court turned that argument aside: "The jury was given a compelling
account of that uncertainty, as it heard testimony describing a chaotic,
confusing process in which decision-makers received dramatically different
reports from different sources."
"Indeed," the court
continued, "Pharmacia's evidence only strengthened that account, because it
described even more disagreements among the actors feeding information to the
Number Of Violations
"In light of these conflicts,
we have concluded that the jury's damage award as to brand name drugs was based
on a reasonable inference flowing from credible evidence," the court
said. "The jury had ample evidence to credit suggesting that Wisconsin officials did not know with certainty actual
wholesale prices, that Pharmacia's published prices provided the basis for its
reimbursement rates, and that Medicaid paid more than it intended to and
rightfully owed as a consequence."
Judge Niess, the court said,
determined the number of violations based on the number of times the inflated
prices were published, not the number of times the state paid for inflated
The court turned aside
Pharmacia's argument that the number of violations should be zero because the
Circuit Court judge failed to issue his decision within 90 days as required by
state law. The court said Judge Niess disposed of Pharmacia's motion on
the number of violations within 90 says, then took up the new issue of the
proper number of violations.
The court said the number of
times First DataBank transmitted inflated average wholesale prices to Medicaid
"constituted the best measure of how many violations occurred."
Remanded To Appeals Court
The court remanded the case
to the Court of Appeals, where other appeal issues are pending.
The opinion was written by
Justice Michael J. Gableman. He was joined by Chief Justice Shirley S.
Abrahamson and Justices Patience D. Roggensack and Annette Kingsland
Ziegler. Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, N. Patrick Crooks and David T.
Prosser did not participate in the opinion.
In a press release, the
Attorney General's Office said that proceedings against 25 nonsettling
defendants have been stayed pending the Pharmacia appeal.
The Attorney General's Office
also said that in addition to the jury's verdict and the judge's forfeiture
assessment, the Circuit Court imposed on Pharmacia costs and attorney fees of
10 Defendants Settled
The Attorney General's Office
said that 10 other drug defendants have settled their drug pricing cases for
more than $17 million.
Pharmacia is represented by
O. Thomas Armstrong, Beth J. Kushner and Douglas M. Raines of von Briesen &
Roper in Milwaukee and John C. Dodds, Erica
Smith-Klocek and Maire E. Donovan of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Washington.
Wisconsis is represented by
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and Assistant Attorney General Frank D.
Remington of the Attorney General's Office in Madison,
Wis., and by George F. Galland Jr., Charles
Barnhill Jr., Betty Eberle and Barry J. Blonien of Miner, Barnhill &
Galland in Madison.
Brand-name drug defendants
appearing as amicus curia were represented by Donald K. Scott, Elice Wos
and Matthew J. Splitek of Quarles & Brady in Madison, William F. Cavanaugh
and Adeel A. Mangi of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler in New
York and Andrew W. Schau of Covington & Burling in New York.
Generic drug defendants
appearing as amici were represented by Robert H. Friebert and Shannon A.
Allen of Friebert, Finerty & St. John in Milwaukee
and Joseph Angland, Michael J. Gallagher and Heather K. McDevitt of White &
Case in New York.
[Editor's Note: Lexis
subscribers may download the document using the link above. The document(s) are
also available at www.mealeysonline.com or by calling the
Customer Support Department at 1-800-833-9844.]
Mealey's is now
available in eBook format!
Sign in with your Lexis.com ID to access LEXIS.com Estates, Gifts & Trusts and Elder Law resources
Discover the features and benefits of LexisNexis® Tax Center
View the LexisNexis
Catalog of Legal and Professional Publications
here for a list of available LexisNexis eBooks.
Click here to learn more about
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.