Arbino vs. Johnson & Johnson 2007
Arbino vs. Johnson & Johnson 2007, WL4569719 (Ohio) decided December 27, 2007. The Ohio Supreme Court was asked to decide four questions of state law relating to tort reform implemented by Senate Bill 80 which was effective on April 7, 2005 limiting non-economic damages in personal injury litigation. The impact of this decision significantly negates any argument that the limitation on non-economic damages in medical negligence claims will be held unconstitutional. In this product liability claim involving serious medical side effects from the use of the Ortho Evra birth control patch, the United States District Court of Ohio Western Division certified the issue as to whether Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18 limiting non-economic damages and tort actions, is unconstitutional. Additional issues were raised in that decision, including issues relative to the limitation on recovery of punitive damages.
The Ohio Supreme Court after revisiting the history of tort reform from 1975 to the present, determined that the cap of $250,000.00 or three times the economic damages up to a maximum of $350,000.00 per injured party, or $500,000.00 per single occurrence, pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18 (limit on non-economic damages), is constitutional and does not violate the right to trial by jury, nor does it violate the due process of law protection arising under Sec. 16, Art. 1 of the Ohio Constitution. The court determined that there is a real and substantial relation to the general welfare of the public due to the uncertainty of civil litigation and the rising costs associated with it harming the economy. The court further determined that non-economic damages are inherently subjective and thus easily tainted by irrelevant considerations. The court further found that the limitation on non-economic damages does not violate the right to equal protection under Sec. 2, Art. 1 of the Ohio Constitution.
