A Pennsylvania appellate court on Friday said that the state Attorney General’s Office had the authority to settle claims against opioid manufacturers over the harms caused by the abuse of the medication.

The Commonwealth Court ruling, against the district attorneys of Allegheny County and Philadelphia, wrote in their opinion that the Pennsylvania attorney general is the “chief law officer” in the state who “outranks all district attorneys and is in the best position to represent the ‘public interest’” in claims such as this.

“The attorney general, as the statewide elected official, has the duty to serve the interests of the public at large, whereas the district attorney serves the interests of his/her local constituents,” wrote Commonwealth Court Judge Michael Wojcik. “Although those interests may often align, where, as here, a conflict in representation arises, the attorney general has authority to control the litigation as the ‘chief law officer.’”

The dispute arose two years ago as then-Attorney General Josh Shapiro and other state attorneys general across the country negotiated two nationwide settlement agreements against opioid manufacturers for their role in contributing to the opioid crisis.

The proposed settlement called for Cardinal, McKesson and AmerisourceBergen and Johnson & Johnson, to pay $26 billion to the states and their subdivisions.

In Pennsylvania, 333 of 356 eligible municipal entities signed on to the agreement, including all 67 counties and 10 of 12 district attorneys.

But Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner continued with their own unfair trade practices claims.

In July 2022, the attorney general, acting on behalf of the state, agreed to the proposed settlement and released all claims against the defendants, including those previously filed by the DAs.

Zappala and Krasner challenged the attorney general’s authority to do so, saying that the entities had concurrent authority and that there is no state law that empowers the AG to supersede an elected district attorney.

But the attorney general argued that he does have the authority to usurp the DA’s office and that state law unequivocally provides the AG’s office the power to pursue civil litigation on behalf of the commonwealth.

The Commonwealth Court agreed with the attorney general that he has the authority to supersede local district attorneys.

“That control permits the attorney general to settle such claims when he determines it is in the best interest of the commonwealth to do so,” the court wrote.

Further, the court found that in crafting the controlling legislation, the General Assembly mandated that the attorney general “shall represent the commonwealth in ‘any’ civil action brought by the commonwealth without limitation.”

The court noted in the decision that even if the DAs’ claims were allowed to proceed, there is nothing left to obtain. The settlement has already achieved restitution and civil penalties, and the city of Philadelphia and Allegheny County have agreed to those terms.

A spokeswoman for Zappala said she had no comment.

A spokesperson for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office said: “The administration is considering its legal options. As such, we have no comment.”

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)