In early 2001, Richard Sackler (above) learned about the fatal consequences befalling some users of the Purdue Pharma drug Oxycontin claims a court filing

The heir to the Sackler billions worked to protect the company while profiting every step of the way according to a lawsuit that was unsealed just last week in the state of Massachusetts.

A complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts accused the Sackler family of not only knowing about the growing opioid epidemic that was being fueled by the painkiller Oxycontin, but pushing their sales force at Purdue Pharma to get more doctors prescribing the drug.

Once a patient had been prescribed the painkiller, executives urged staff to get those individuals on a higher dosage, thus generating more profit.

And shortly after the opioid epidemic was declared a national emergency by the Trump administration in May of last year, Purdue Pharma secured a patent for a drug to treat addiction.

'The various Sackler family members, whom I have come to know since joining the Purdue Pharma Board last July, are good people and their commitment to giving back is truly admirable,' said Steve Miller, Chairman of the Board of Directors at Purdue Pharma in statement.

'The mischaracterizations of them in the litigation are worse than unfair and do not resemble the people whom I have come to know and admire.'

The company also released a statement that said in part: Among the Attorney General’s most egregious characterizations are casting in a negative light Purdue’s due diligence on a potential acquisition of a drug for the treatment of addiction that was already on the market; even though the company never actually made the acquisition.'

In early 2001, Richard Sackler learned about the fatal consequences befalling some users of the Purdue Pharma drug Oxycontin in a series of emails from staff and those directly effected by the building opioid epidemic claims the complaint.

One sales representative contacted Sackler according to the filing - which names the company and eight of the Sackler heirs as defendants - detailing what was being said about the company's product in his sales region at a meeting of parents.

Up it: He still encouraged an increase in patient doses per a complain from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

'Statements were made that OxyContin sales were at the expense of dead children and the only difference between heroin and OxyContin is that you can get OxyContin from a doctor,' read the email from January 2001.

In February federal prosecutors reported 59 deaths from OxyContin in a single state, news which Sackler responded to by stating: 'This is not too bad. It could have been far worse.'

A week after that email, a letter was sent to the company by a mother who had lost her son.

'My son was only 28 years old when he died from Oxycontin on New Year’s Day. We all miss him very much, his wife especially on Valentines’ Day,' she wrote.

'Why would a company make a product that strong (80 and 160 mg) when they know they will kill young people? My son had a bad back and could have taken Motrin but his Dr. started him on Vicodin, then Oxycontin then Oxycontin SR. Now he is dead!”

The complaint states that a staff member noted: 'I see a liability issue here.'

Sackler opted to address this according to the filing by presenting those who had overdosed as removed from the norm, sending out one email in which he wrote: 'we have to hammer on the abusers in every way possible. They are the culprits and the problem. They are reckless criminals.'

In the midst of all this, Sackler responded to a proposal that sought to get pharmacies to increase OxyContin inventory and allow for 2 or 3 bottles of the powerful pain pill by 'demand[ing] to know why they couldn’t get up to 4 bottles or more.'

He also told management to 'measure our performance by Rx’s by strength, giving higher measures to higher strengths' in an email that was also sent to two other defendants in the case, Jonathan and Mortimer Sackler on the instruction.

The complaint also states that Jonathan knew then that 'high doses of an opioid are used for long periods of time.'

And for those looking for help with an addiction to opioids, the company managed to secure a patent back in September.

'One of the most glaring omissions in Massachusetts’ complaint continues to be that, in 2013, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) of the Department of Health and Human Services determined that Purdue had fulfilled its requirements under a 2007-2012 Corporate Integrity Agreement (“CIA”) relating to the marketing of its medications and released Purdue from the agreement,' the company said in that statement released last week.

'Furthermore, during the term of this five-year agreement, Purdue had submitted annual reports to a designated OIG monitor and had engaged an Independent Review Organization that evaluated specified elements of Purdue’s compliance program on a periodic basis to assess compliance with the terms of the CIA.'

In closing, the compnay stated: 'Purdue and the individual defendants will continue to defend themselves against these misleading and deliberately inflammatory allegations.

'In the meantime, Purdue continues to fight for balance in the public discourse so that society can simultaneously help pain patients in need and create real solutions to the complex problem of addiction.'