Ohio Supreme Court Sides with Big Business
When the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a state law limiting how much a person injured by a defective product can be awarded for pain and suffering, the plaintiff’s attorney Janet Abaray had this to say, “The court has decided it is more important to protect a New Jersey company that came into Ohio and injured Ohio citizens than it is to protect Ohio citizens. We feel it’s a really tragic day in Ohio history.” Her statements were based off the law’s authors who said the decision would help improve Ohio’s reputation as a pro-business state. The truth is that the Ohio Supreme Court ruling will make it harder for ordinary Ohio citizens to hold big business accountable. Janet Abaray is representing Melisa Arbino who sued the New-Jersey based Johnson & Johnson over complications she suffered while using the Ortho Evra birth control patch. Arbino said Johnson & Johnson's didn't properly inform women that the patch has 60 percent more estrogen than birth-control pills. Her use of the patch resulted in her developing blood clots on her brain and lungs almost killing her. Arbino sued in Ohio but, because of an Ohio law change in 2004, she can't collect more than $350,000 for pain and suffering if she wins. Abaray challenged the law change in court, saying a jury - not Ohio lawmakers - should determine how much someone should be awarded for pain and suffering and that the law that caps the monetary damages violates Ohio's law allowing a jury to hear the case. The case is set for a June trial.
