Ohio's highest court has ruled that public nuisance lawsuits against pharmacies in opioid cases must adhere to state product liability law. The Supreme Court of Ohio delivered a decisive ruling asserting that pharmacy chains like CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart, which have been implicated in the opioid crisis, cannot be sued via common law public nuisance claims, directing any such complaints to the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA).
In response to a request for clarification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which is dealing with appeals from the pharmacy chains after a federal jury found them liable for creating a public nuisance, a divided Supreme Court determined the OPLA as amended in 2007 covers any public nuisance claim related to the sale of a product creating a conflict between the counties' interpretation and that of the pharmacies, the counties argued that the act pertains only to claims involving defective products seeking compensatory damages while the pharmacies insisted the act sweeps broadly to include any public nuisance claims regardless of the type of relief sought which led to the majority siding with the latter interpretation citing the legislature's explicit inclusion of any public nuisance claim into the OPLA definition.
Writing for the majority, Justice Joseph T. Deters stated, "The plain language of OPLA abrogates product-liability claims, including product-related public-nuisance claims seeking equitable relief," as reported by Court News Ohio. However, Justice Melody Stewart and Justice Michael P. Donnelly provided contrasting opinions insisting that the counties' common law nuisance suit should proceed since their claim did not seek compensatory damages but instead, "equitable relief in the form of money to be used for the abatement of the nuisance." They maintained that the OPLA's language does not expunge the counties' ability to seek such remedies.
The ruling comes amidst a larger series of legal challenges faced by pharmaceutical companies and chains due to the opioid epidemic which has resulted in numerous lawsuits by local governments, Native American tribes and other entities alleging that industry practices have contributed to widespread opioid addiction the scope of these cases is vast and the legal battles are being closely watched as cities and counties seek resources to combat the fallout of the opioid crisis.
Central to these lawsuits is the contention that pharmacies have exacerbated the opioid epidemic by failing to implement controls to curb the distribution of unlawfully prescribed opioids, a charge the pharmacies have consistently denied or downplayed. Despite the divisive nature of the Ohio ruling, it underscores the courts' unwilling role in delineating the boundaries of liability and restitution in face of a public health crisis that, as Justice Deters noted via Court News Ohio, has "touched the lives of people in every corner of Ohio."
