The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation; Trumbull County, Ohio et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., finding that the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) abrogates all common-law public-nuisance claims that arise from the sale of a product, including prescription medications.
Background
The case stems from the multidistrict opioid litigation that involves myriad city and county governments, Indian tribes, and other entities across the nation. The plaintiffs in the litigation alleged that opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies, including Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart, contributed to the opioid crisis by filling prescriptions for opioids without adequate controls to prevent illicit distribution.
This Court specifically considered allegations brought forth by Trumbull County and Lake County in Ohio. The two counties brought a common- law absolute public-nuisance claim against the pharmacies, seeking equitable relief to abate the opioid epidemic. The pharmacies filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the OPLA governs certain product-liability claims in Ohio and abrogates all common-law public-nuisance claims related to the sale of a product.
The federal district court initially denied the Pharmacies’ motion to dismiss, based on an earlier decision in a separate action with the same multidistrict litigation, brought by Summit County, Ohio. leading to a jury verdict in favor of the counties. In that case, the federal district court concluded that the OPLA does not abrogate absolute public-nuisance claims seeking relief for harm other than compensatory damages (e.g. equitable remedies), leaning heavily on legislative history. The pharmacies then appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit certified a question of state law to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Ohio Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the statutory language of the OPLA, particularly the definition of “product liability claim” in R.C.2307.71(A)(13), which was amended in 2007 to include “any public nuisance claim.” The federal district court found that the inclusion of “public nuisance claims” in “product liability claim[s]” was “not intended to be substantive,” based on the legislative history.
The Ohio Supreme Court, however, concluded that the phrase “also includes” in the statute is additive, meaning it expands the definition of “product liability claim” to encompass “any public nuisance claim or cause of action at common law in which it is alleged that the design, manufacture, supply, marketing, distribution, promotion, advertising, labeling, or sale of a product unreasonably interferes with a right common to the general public.”
The Ohio Supreme Court further noted that the kind of relief requested, whether compensatory damages or equitable relief, is immaterial to the definition and the OPLA does not limit product-liability claims to those involving defective products. Instead, it broadly abrogates all common-law public-nuisance claims related to the sale of a product, regardless of whether the claim involves a product defect.
Implications for Health Care Compliance Professionals
The decision underscores that public-nuisance claims related to the sale of products, including pharmaceuticals, fall under the purview of the OPLA in the State of Ohio. It is possible that this ruling may trigger similar reviews in other states under individual state laws.