Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson
116 Ohio St. 3d 468, 2007 Ohio 6948, 880 N.E.2d 420 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute imposing caps on noneconomic and punitive damages does not violate the Ohio Constitution's right to a trial by jury, as long as the jury is permitted to perform its fact-finding function, with the cap being applied by the court as a matter of law. Such caps will be upheld against due process and equal protection challenges if they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest, such as improving the stability and predictability of the civil justice system.
Facts:
- Melisa Arbino used the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch, a hormonal birth-control medication.
- The patch was created and manufactured by Johnson & Johnson and its related entities.
- Arbino alleges that as a result of using the patch, she suffered blood clots and other serious medical side effects.
- At the time of her injury and lawsuit, Ohio had recently enacted tort reform legislation (S.B. 80) that placed caps on certain types of damages a plaintiff could recover.
Procedural Posture:
- Melisa Arbino sued Johnson & Johnson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, a federal trial court.
- Arbino's complaint included a facial constitutional challenge to several Ohio tort-reform statutes.
- Arbino filed a motion for partial summary judgment on her constitutional challenges.
- The State of Ohio intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the statutes.
- The case was consolidated by the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation with other similar cases.
- The consolidated case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- The federal district court judge certified three questions of state law regarding the constitutionality of the statutes to the Supreme Court of Ohio for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Ohio's statutory caps on noneconomic damages (R.C. 2315.18) and punitive damages (R.C. 2315.21) violate provisions of the Ohio Constitution, including the right to a trial by jury, the right to a remedy, due process, and equal protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Moyer, C.J.
No, the statutory caps on noneconomic and punitive damages are constitutional. The statutes do not violate the right to a trial by jury because the jury still fulfills its fact-finding role by determining the amount of damages; the court then applies the legislatively mandated cap as a matter of law, which does not re-examine or replace the jury's factual findings. The statutes survive a rational-basis review for due process and equal protection challenges because they are rationally related to the legitimate government interest of making the civil justice system more predictable and stable to benefit the state's economy. The General Assembly tailored the legislation to address prior constitutional defects by, for example, exempting catastrophic injuries from the noneconomic damages cap, which prevents the law from being arbitrary or unreasonable.
Concurring - Cupp, J.
No, the statutory caps are constitutional. The right to a jury trial was historically intended to protect citizens from judicial overreach, not to limit the legislature's power to make laws. The General Assembly has plenary constitutional authority to alter or abolish common-law causes of action, and this power necessarily includes the lesser power to modify the remedies available for those actions, such as by imposing damages caps. Since there is no vested property right in any rule of common law, the legislature is free to change such rules for the common good.
Dissenting - O’Donnell, J.
Yes, the statutory cap on noneconomic damages (R.C. 2315.18) is unconstitutional. It violates the inviolate right to a trial by jury under the Ohio Constitution, which includes the right to have a jury determine all facts, including the amount of compensatory damages. The statute requires the court to disregard the jury's factual findings when they exceed the cap, rendering the jury's role a meaningless exercise. The majority's analogies to remittitur (which requires the plaintiff's consent) and treble damages (which are punitive and statutory) are inapposite and do not justify this infringement on a fundamental constitutional right.
Dissenting - Pfeifer, J.
Yes, both statutory caps are unconstitutional. The caps eviscerate the right to trial by jury by authorizing a judge to ignore or change a jury's factual findings, rendering the right impotent. Furthermore, the statutes violate due process and equal protection because they should be subject to strict scrutiny, as they infringe on a fundamental right. Even under a rational-basis test, the statutes fail because the legislative findings cited by the General Assembly are based on biased, flawed, and non-Ohio-specific evidence, making the laws arbitrary and unreasonable. The statutes create an irrational classification that forces a small group of significantly injured plaintiffs to bear the entire cost of a purported public benefit.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark shift in Ohio tort law, upholding sweeping tort reform measures after decades of the court striking down similar legislation. The ruling solidifies the General Assembly's authority to limit common-law remedies, provided the statutes are drafted to avoid the specific constitutional flaws identified in prior cases, such as by exempting catastrophic injuries. The case significantly strengthens the principle of judicial deference to legislative economic policymaking under the rational-basis standard of review. This precedent provides a clear framework for future tort reform efforts in Ohio and diminishes the power of the jury in determining the final value of a tort claim.
