Earlier this month, the Ohio Supreme Court, on the certification of a state-law question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, ruled that the Ohio Product Liability Law abrogates claims asserted against sellers of prescription opioids for costs related to opioid abuse treatment that are based upon a public nuisance theory. In the underlying Federal Court case a judgment (based upon the theory that a public nuisance claim is viable under the law of the State of Ohio) in the amount of $650 million had been entered against major pharmacy chains Walgreens, Walmart and CVS. That verdict was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The validity of a public nuisance theory being a matter of state law, the Sixth Circuit certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court for resolution.

The Court's ruling came after PLAC (Product Liability Advisory Council) filed an amicus brief challenging the claims. Dinsmore attorneys Frank Woodside and Greg Mathews played a support role in advising and filing the brief, which was primarily authored by Phil Goldberg and Victor Schwartz of Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP.

The Court determined that the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) overrides public nuisance claims tied to product-related harms. Although not involved in the opioid litigation or the drafting of the amicus brief, Bill Seitz, a Dinsmore attorney and longtime Ohio legislator, played a significant role in the enactment of OPLA. It emphasized that creating legal remedies for such claims is the responsibility of the legislature, not the courts.

This decision aligns with similar rulings by other state supreme courts, including Oklahoma, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Illinois and Missouri, rejecting public nuisance claims against manufacturers and sellers. Related cases are currently pending in Alaska, Maine and West Virginia.