Ohio Supreme Court Blocks Public Nuisance Claims Against National Pharmacies, Impacting Opioid Litigation

In a significant legal ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that counties cannot file public nuisance claims against national pharmaceutical chains under the Ohio Product Liability Act. This decision, announced on March 15, 2025, could have far-reaching implications for opioid litigation nationwide and may overturn a $650 million judgment against CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart (AP News).

Key Takeaways From The Ruling

The ruling effectively limits the ability of local governments to hold major pharmacy chains accountable for their alleged roles in the opioid crisis through public nuisance laws. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that claims brought by counties under the state’s public nuisance laws were invalid under the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA), which governs how companies can be held liable for harm caused by their products.

According to the court’s decision, the OPLA is the exclusive mechanism for seeking damages from companies over product-related harm. This means that counties like Lake and Trumbull, which originally brought the lawsuits against the pharmacies, cannot use public nuisance claims to seek financial damages for opioid-related harms (Reuters).

Impact On The $650 Million Judgment

The ruling could overturn a landmark $650 million judgment awarded to Ohio counties in 2022. This judgment found that the three national pharmacy chains contributed to the opioid epidemic by failing to monitor suspicious opioid prescriptions. The legal victory for the pharmacies comes after years of litigation involving thousands of lawsuits filed across the country by states, cities, and counties against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies.

Attorneys representing Lake and Trumbull counties argued that the pharmacies ignored red flags regarding excessive opioid prescriptions and contributed to widespread addiction and overdose deaths. However, the court found that these claims do not fall under public nuisance law but rather under product liability law, which has different legal requirements and limitations (The Columbus Dispatch).

Reactions From Key Stakeholders

Pharmacy chains hailed the decision as a victory for legal clarity, arguing that they should not be held responsible for prescribing practices that are regulated by doctors and federal agencies. CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart all released statements affirming their commitment to preventing opioid abuse but maintaining that their role as dispensers does not equate to liability for misuse.

On the other hand, public health advocates and local officials expressed disappointment. Lake County Commissioner John Hamercheck criticized the ruling, stating that it removes a key tool local governments have used to hold corporations accountable for the opioid epidemic’s devastation.

Broader Implications For Opioid Litigation

Legal experts suggest this ruling could influence ongoing opioid-related lawsuits across the country. Many state and local governments have pursued public nuisance claims as a legal strategy to obtain damages from drug manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision may prompt other courts to dismiss similar claims, forcing plaintiffs to seek relief through alternative legal avenues.

Professor Richard C. Ausness, an expert in product liability law at the University of Kentucky, noted that this ruling aligns with previous corporate-friendly interpretations of public nuisance laws, particularly in cases involving consumer products (National Law Review).

The Future Of Opioid Accountability

With this ruling, the burden may now shift to state legislatures and federal regulators to enact laws explicitly holding pharmacies accountable for their role in the opioid crisis. Some legal analysts predict that Congress may consider new federal legislation aimed at closing legal loopholes that shield corporations from liability.

Meanwhile, opioid manufacturers and distributors continue to settle lawsuits rather than fight them in court. In 2022, Johnson & Johnson, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson agreed to pay $26 billion in a national opioid settlement, though that deal did not involve pharmacy chains (The New York Times).

What This Means For Ohioans

For residents of Lake and Trumbull counties, the ruling is a setback in their quest for funds to support addiction treatment and recovery services. The counties were expecting hundreds of millions of dollars to address the opioid crisis’s devastating effects on public health, law enforcement, and social services.

Despite this ruling, local officials have vowed to continue seeking accountability. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has indicated that his office is exploring other legal options to hold corporations responsible for the opioid crisis (Ohio Attorney General’s Office).

Final Thoughts On The Ohio Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling

The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to block public nuisance claims against CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart under the Ohio Product Liability Act represents a major shift in opioid litigation. This ruling could set a precedent that impacts ongoing and future lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and retailers nationwide. As legal battles continue, lawmakers and public health advocates may need to push for new legislative solutions to ensure accountability in the opioid epidemic.

For now, Ohio counties affected by the opioid crisis must reassess their legal strategies, while national pharmacy chains can breathe a sigh of relief—at least for the moment.