The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that more than one pharmaceutical company can be tried at the same time in the state's lawsuit accusing more than 70 drug companies of fraud in over­charging the state's Medicaid pro­gram.

The ruling went in favor of the state, which sought to combine some of the cases. The drug compa­nies had asked that each company be tried separately.

Montgomery attorney Jerry Beasley, who represents the state in the case, said the ruling clears the way for trial to begin June 16 in Montgomery on a suit against two of the companies, Novartis AG's pharmaceutical division and SmithKline Beecham Corp.

In the first trial in February, a state court jury awarded the state $215 million in its Medicaid drug pricing fraud case against Astra­Zeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Beas­ley said Friday he believes the state's case against Novartis and Smith-
Kline is stronger than the original case.

"The drug companies wanted to string these trials out one by one over a series of years. This way we can try the cases quicker," Beasley said.

Attorneys for the drug compa­nies had argued that the facts in each case are complex and that it would be confusing for jurors to combine the trials.

A spokeswoman for Novatris, Brandi Robinson, declined to com­ment because the case involves pending litigation.

Attorney General Troy King called the Supreme Court ruling "good news for the people who de­pend on Medicaid to provide im­portant medical services."

"Now we are going to more quickly determine if these compa­nies took advantage of the state," King said. "Obviously, if we've got to have 70-something separate trials it would take a lot longer and be more complicated."

The pharmaceutical compa­nies had appealed a ruling by Cir­cuit Judge Charles Price, who had approved trying more than one case at the same time. Price had ruled that consolidating the cases "avoids needlessly duplicative trials."

The Supreme Court in an 8-1 ruling agreed that the cases against the drug companies are complex, but said Novartis and SmithKline could be tried at the same time and any "confusion can be avoided or minimized by care­ful trial management."

Justice Glenn Murdock dis­sented. He said in a separate opin­ion that he felt there should be sep­arate trials "because of the complexity of the claims and de­fenses of the parties and the likeli­hood of substantial confusion on the part of the jury and of preju­dice to the defendants."