In the wake of the OxyContin settlement, Attorney General Darrell McGraw has given various and inconsistent reasons as for why he chose to keep $10 million in state settlement funds for himself and his personal injury lawyer friends, instead of sharing the funds with the named plaintiff state agencies on whose behalf McGraw filed suit.
McGraw’s numerous stories include the following:
1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Fran Hughes has said that the settlement was
intentionally structured so as to allow West Virginia to keep as much of the money as possible. In a 2007 finance committee hearing, Hughes told legislators, “We have arranged a methodology that has prevented the federal government from coming back and seizing the money,” West Virginia Record, August 17, 2007.
2. One year later, Attorney General Darrell McGraw appeared to change his office’s tune somewhat. During a January 2008 Senate Finance Committee Hearing, McGraw told legislators that his office reached a last-minute “courthouse steps settlement” on the very day the OxyContin case was set to go to trial. McGraw went on to testify that his office basically had no choice but to take the settlement as it was being offered by the Judge and defendants in the case.
McGraw’s statement seems completely inconsistent with Fran Hughes’ previous statement to legislators that the Attorney General’s office specifically structured the settlement to avoid any payments to the Federal government.
3. In an appeal of the Federal government’s decision to withhold more than $4.1 million in state Medicaid funds as a result of McGraw’s actions in the OxyContin case, the Attorney General’s office has argued that they had “abandoned the causes of action” in which the plaintiff state agencies were entitled to participate.
This statement is also inconsistent with McGraw’s testimony that the plaintiff state agencies were never dismissed from the OxyContin lawsuit.
4. In McGraw’s latest appearance before the House Finance Committee, the Attorney General went so far as to testify that his office wasn’t representing the plaintiff state agencies at all! That statement flies in the face of court documents filed in the case, which show that Attorney General McGraw and his appointed counsel were the only lawyers representing the plaintiff state agencies.
Clearly, the Attorney General’s office is having trouble keeping its’ stories straight.
WVClosedforBusiness.com has no control over the visual advertising content of the forwarding site.
Click here to listen to Fran Hughes’ testimony before the House Finance Committee
Click here to listen to Attorney General McGraw’s testimony before the Senate Finance Committee
Click here to listen to Attorney General McGraw’s testimony before the House Finance Committe
Powered by FireStats