By Nate Raymond (NS:RYMD) and Brendan Pierson
(Reuters) -Ohio’s top court ruled on Tuesday that pharmacy chain operators CVS, Walmart (NYSE:WMT) and Walgreens could not be held liable for fueling an opioid epidemic in two counties in the state 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 the dispensing of addictive pain medications by the pharmacy chains created a public nuisance that the companies should be forced to address.
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.
Representatives for the companies and counties did not immediately respond to requests 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.
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.
