Pharmacies prevail in appeal of $650-million opioid award in Ohio
Court says pharmacy chains cannot be held accountable
Earlier award of $650 mln to counties likely to be overturned
Most lawsuits filed over US opioid addiction epidemic settled nationally
Adds comments in paragraphs 6-7, further background in paragraphs 8, 12-16
By Nate Raymond and Brendan Pierson
Dec 10 (Reuters) -Ohio's top court ruled on Tuesday that pharmacy chain operators CVS CVS.N, Walmart WMT.N and Walgreens WBA.O could not be held liable for fueling an opioid epidemic in two Ohio counties that won a $650.9-million judgment against them.
The Ohio Supreme Court held on a 5-2 vote that a state law barred Lake and Trumbull counties' claims that pharmacy chains' dispensing of addictive pain medications created a public nuisance that the companies should be forced to remediate.
Justice Joseph Deters, writing for the majority, said the court recognized that the deadly epidemic had touched the lives of people throughout Ohio and "undoubtedly has far-reaching consequences for their communities and for the state as a whole."
"Creating a solution to this crisis out of whole cloth is, however, beyond this court's authority," Deters wrote.
He said an amendment to the Ohio Products Liability Act that the state legislature adopted in 2007 barred all common-law public nuisance claims based on the sale of products that seek compensation from a product's manufacturer or supplier.
"This ruling will have a devastating impact on communities and their ability to police corporate misconduct," Peter Weinberger, a lawyer for the counties, said in a statement, adding that "our team will continue to fight for these counties through other legal avenues."
Representatives for CVS and Walgreens said they were pleased with the ruling. Walmart did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case was the first the three pharmacy operators had faced at trial of the thousands of lawsuits filed by states and local governments against drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies over the U.S. opioid addiction epidemic.
The vast majority of those cases have been resolved through large nationwide settlements, which now total about $46 billion, but the Ohio counties were among those who opted out of those deals and pressed forward with their own trials or settlements.
A federal jury in Cleveland concluded in 2021 that an oversupply of addictive pain pills and the diversion of those opioids to the black market created a public nuisance in the counties, and that the pharmacies helped cause it.
U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, who oversees the federal litigation over the opioid epidemic, ordered CVS, Walmart and Walgreens following the trial to pay a combined $650.9 million to help the two counties address, or abate, the harms caused by the epidemic.
The companies appealed, prompting the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year to ask the Ohio Supreme Court to review the matter, saying it raised "novel and unresolved questions" of state law that it should address first.
The majority in Tuesday's decision comprised all four of the court's Republican judges and one Democrat, with two Democrats dissenting. The case will now go back to the 6th Circuit, which is expected to overturn the verdict in light of the Ohio court's conclusion.
The result is in line with other opioid cases that have gone to trial, which have largely been unsuccessful.
Oklahoma's top court in 2021 overturned a $465 million judgment that the state's attorney general had won at trial against drugmaker Johnson & Johnson JNJ.N, also finding that state law did not allow a public nuisance claim.
Judges in California and West Virginia ruled against local governments in opioid lawsuits following trials there, similarly rejecting public nuisance arguments. West Virginia's highest court will hear an appeal from the city of Huntington and its county next year.
The city of Baltimore won $266 million in a trial against distributors last month, and could be awarded more by a judge, though the judgment will likely be appealed. San Francisco also won a trial against Walgreens, and settled with the company for $230 million while an appeal was pending.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Rod Nickel, Alexia Garamfalvi, Alexandra Hudson
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
