Ohio Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Pharmacies, Overturns $650M Opioid Judgment.
The Ohio Supreme Court determined on Tuesday that the state's product liability legislation prevents counties from pursuing public nuisance claims against national pharmaceutical companies, as they did in the context of national opioid litigation. This ruling has the potential to reverse a $650 million judgment previously awarded to the pharmacies. An attorney representing the counties described the ruling as "devastating."
The justices reached a largely unanimous conclusion regarding a complex interpretation of the state law, which arose from a lawsuit initiated by Lake and Trumbull counties near Cleveland against CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart. Initially, the counties prevailed in their lawsuit and were granted $650 million in damages by a federal judge in 2022.
However, the pharmacies contested the interpretation of the Ohio Product Liability Act, asserting that it shielded them from such penalties. In an opinion authored by Justice Joseph Deters, the court concluded that Ohio lawmakers intended for the law to eliminate "all common law product liability causes of action," even those that do not seek compensatory damages but rather "equitable relief" for the affected communities.
Latest: Jay-Z Claims Lawyer Behind Diddy Rape Allegations Tried to 'Extort Exorbitant Sums'
"The plain language of the OPLA abrogates product-liability claims, including product-related public-nuisance claims seeking equitable relief," he stated. "We are bound to interpret the statute as it is written, rather than according to our personal policy preferences." Two Democratic justices on the predominantly Republican court expressed disagreement on this specific point while agreeing with the remainder of the ruling. "Any award aimed at addressing a public nuisance such as the opioid crisis would undoubtedly be significant in size and scope, considering the enduring and widespread nature of the claimed nuisance," Justice Melody Stewart noted in an opinion co-signed by Justice Michael Donnelly. "However, the substantial size and scope of an abatement award does not inherently convert it into a compensatory-damages award."
In a statement, Peter Weinberger, co-liaison counsel for the plaintiffs in the national opioid litigation and a member of the Cleveland-based law firm Spangenberg Shibley & Liber, expressed his disappointment regarding the recent ruling. "This decision will significantly harm communities and their capacity to address corporate wrongdoing," he stated.
"We have successfully utilized public nuisance claims nationwide to secure nearly $60 billion in opioid settlements, including close to $1 billion in Ohio alone, and the ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court jeopardizes the very legal framework that facilitated this achievement." However, Weinberger emphasized that the ruling issued on Tuesday would not signify the conclusion of their efforts, asserting that communities would persist in their pursuit of justice "through alternative legal channels."
Latest: Albertsons Sues Kroger and Backs Out of $25B Merger After Courts Block Deal
"We remain unwavering in our dedication to holding all accountable parties responsible as this litigation progresses across the country," he remarked. In his ruling from 2022, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster indicated that the funds awarded to Lake and Trumbull counties would be allocated to combat the opioid epidemic. At that time, attorneys estimated the total damages at $3.3 billion. Lake County was set to receive $306 million over a span of 15 years, while Trumbull County was to receive $344 million during the same timeframe. An immediate payment of nearly $87 million was designated to cover the initial two years of disbursements.
A jury ruled in favor of the counties in November 2021 after a six-week trial, leaving it to the judge to determine the appropriate compensation. He subsequently heard testimony the following May to assess the damages. The counties successfully demonstrated to the jury that the pharmacies had a significant role in creating a public nuisance through their distribution of pain medications. This marked the first instance in which pharmacy companies defended themselves in a trial related to a drug crisis that has claimed the lives of over half a million Americans since 1999.
