Chapter 175: The Opioid Inquiry

Katherine Bauer arrived at Roden & Associates on a Tuesday morning without an appointment, which told me something about how she operated.

She’d called the previous Thursday. Her assistant had confirmed the meeting. She’d arrived eleven minutes early, declined coffee from the reception desk, and was reading something on her phone when Sarah brought her to the conference room. The phone went into her jacket pocket the moment I came through the door.

She stood. Extended her hand. Her grip was efficient.

“Scott Roden,” she said. “Thank you for the time.”

“Attorney General Bauer.”

“Katherine. I don’t use titles in rooms with fewer than four people.”

I noted that. She was going to need something from me and had decided against formal authority as the instrument. That was either genuine comfort with directness or a calculated choice — I suspected both.

“Sit down,” I said. “Tell me what you have.”

She had three pharmaceutical companies and twelve thousand documented deaths.

The names were Weston Pharmaceuticals, Norland Corporation, and Allied Therapeutics. All three had marketed opioid analgesics in New York State over a five-year period. All three had internal communications — some subpoenaed, some from whistleblowers, some obtained through prior state investigations — showing that their marketing departments had been targeting primary care physicians with prescribing incentives at the same time their clinical research divisions were receiving data about addiction escalation rates that never reached the marketing teams or the public.

“Twelve thousand deaths,” she said, “documented by the state health department as opioid-related fatalities across New York counties from 2012 to 2016. Buffalo. Rochester. The Bronx. Long Island. Communities that don’t appear in the same paragraph unless they share a crisis.” She looked at me. “The crisis is pharmaceutical. The decisions that made it were made in boardrooms.”

“What does the internal documentation show specifically?”

“Weston has communications from 2013 in which their addiction research team flagged the OxyNorex reformulation as producing higher dependency rates than the predecessor compound. Those communications were routed to legal. Not to marketing. Not to regulators. Legal reviewed them, determined they didn’t trigger mandatory disclosure obligations under the existing FDA filing, and closed the loop.” She opened the folder she’d brought. “Norland’s internal sales compensation data shows that their top-performing representatives — the ones who received the highest bonuses — were in regions with the steepest opioid mortality increases. Not a coincidence. A system.”

“Allied?”

“Different mechanism. Allied’s physicians education program — which they called CME sponsorships — was functionally a prescribing incentive scheme. Continuing medical education credits funded by Allied, taught by Allied-selected physicians, covering pain management with their opioids as the recommended treatment. We have a forty-seven percent higher prescribing rate for Allied products among physicians who attended their CME events compared to those who didn’t.”

I read through the folder she’d left open. The documentation was substantial. Not complete — not trial-ready — but the architecture was visible.

She’d done her homework before coming in.

“Why Roden & Associates?” I said.

“Because you took a pharmaceutical case with a 44% probability at intake and won it for $467 million.” She held my gaze. “You proved you can build a case against a well-funded pharmaceutical defendant with complicated data evidence and make twelve people understand it. I need someone who can do that against three defendants simultaneously.” A pause. “The previous two firms I spoke with wanted to sue everyone for everything. You won Meridian by being specific. I think specific is what this case requires.”

I spent the afternoon with the System and the folders.

[ Win Rate Calculator: Opioid case assessment. Three defendants: Weston, Norland, Allied. AG’s preferred theory — broad public nuisance liability, comprehensive accountability across all defendant conduct. Probability of favorable verdict across all three defendants simultaneously: 23%. Variables: jury complexity, multiple defense teams creating reasonable doubt through competing narratives, diffuse causation chain, regulatory capture arguments. Assessment: broad theory is politically visible and legally weak. ]

Twenty-three percent.

The Meridian case had opened at forty-four and I’d known it was winnable. Twenty-three was not winnable.

[ Win Rate Calculator: Alternative theory assessment. Targeted liability — defendants that specifically suppressed internal addiction escalation data while marketing opioids as low-addiction-risk. Narrower defendant selection (2 of 3 have strong documented suppression evidence), provable causation chain built on Meridian precedent (documented knowledge plus documented non-disclosure). Probability: 51%. ]

The gap was twenty-eight percentage points.

Bauer’s theory would generate coverage. It would look like the most aggressive possible accountability. It would lose, probably — or settle for a fraction of what the case was worth, with defendants paying enough to make the headlines look like a victory and not enough to change the behavior calculus.

My theory would be less visually comprehensive. It would also be a genuine fight for a real number that could survive appeal and set precedent.

I called her.

“I’ll take this case,” I said. “One condition.”

“What condition?”

“I choose the legal theory.”

A pause.

“Walk me through the difference,” she said.

I walked her through it. The twenty-three versus the fifty-one. The difference between prosecuting everyone for everything — which creates a circus where twelve different defenses generate enough noise to muddy the causation chain — and prosecuting the specific, documented decision by specific people to receive information about addiction escalation and choose not to let it change their marketing behavior.

“The Meridian case won because the jury understood one specific thing,” I said. “Someone modified a line of code. Not a regulatory ambiguity, not a scientific judgment call — a line of code, changed six days before an FDA filing. Twelve people understood that, and they held it against Meridian for $467 million.” I paused. “This case wins when the jury understands one specific thing: an executive received a memo that said the addiction rate on their product was twice what they’d told the market, and chose to keep selling it the same way. That’s the case.”

“Your theory narrows the headlines,” she said.

“Your theory narrows the chances.”

She asked for a week.

Her legal team called back in three days.

“Your theory. Your case.” A beat. “Don’t make me regret trusting a plaintiff’s attorney over my own staff.”

“You won’t.”

I called Donna from the car.

“I took the opioid case,” I said.

“I know,” she said. “I saw it in your face when you handed me the file.”

“It’s going to be the next three years.”

“I know that too.”

There was a pause on the line. Not empty — a specific quality of silence that meant she was deciding something about timing.

“Scott.”

“Yeah.”

“We’re pregnant.”

The car moved through Manhattan traffic and I was completely still inside it.

“…Since when?”

“Three weeks. I did the test this morning but I’ve been thinking it was possible for two weeks.” Her voice carried the specific mix she brought to everything significant — present, clear, a little careful. “June 2017. You did the math already.”

I did the math without the System.

Our daughter was three months old. Donna’s Paulsen Consulting was fourteen months old. Roden & Associates was three months old. The opioid case was signed this afternoon.

And June 2017 was exactly when they’d talked about it on a Barcelona rooftop — 2016 or 2017, when Donna’s practice is more established.

“Okay,” I said.

My voice came out different. Recalibrated was the right word — not shocked, not performing composure, but genuinely recalculated. The scale of everything important had just doubled in a single conversation.

“Okay?” she said.

“Okay,” I said again. “That’s — yes. Okay. That’s the right thing to happen.”

She was quiet for a moment, then: “You’re doing the calculation.”

“I’m not. I’m just—”

“You’re doing the calculation in the background while talking to me.”

She knew.

“We’re going to need a bigger wall,” I said.

She laughed. The real one.

“Yes,” she said. “Much bigger.”

The car moved uptown. Everything that was already important had become more important. The case. The firm. The first daughter, three months old and currently being managed by a rotating schedule Donna had built with the same operational thoroughness she brought to hospital EMR implementations.

The new person who was three weeks from existing.

The next three years of work.

All of it simultaneously real, all of it chosen.

“Come home,” she said.

“On my way,” I said.

A LOT More chapters reign FREE upon unwrittenrealm.com.

• Normal | $8 —

• Overlord | $19 —

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰

― DECREE ―

More chapters reign FREE upon unwrittenrealm.com.

The throne acknowledges.