## Facts

- Melisa Arbino alleged she suffered serious injuries from the Ortho Evra birth control patch and asserted product-liability claims seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Arbino filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Johnson & Johnson-related entities.
- Arbino brought a facial constitutional challenge under the Ohio Constitution to Ohio tort-reform statutes:
  - Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18, which caps noneconomic damages with specified dollar and multiplier limits and higher limits for certain severe injuries.
  - Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21, which limits punitive damages (generally to a multiple of compensatory damages), imposes procedures, and restricts vicarious punitive liability absent specified proof.
- The federal district court certified state-law constitutional questions to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the certified questions in a proceeding not involving a final judgment on Arbino’s underlying tort claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18’s noneconomic-damages caps are facially unconstitutional under the Ohio Constitution, including the jury-trial guarantee, due course of law/open courts/right-to-remedy protections, equal protection, and separation of powers.
2. Whether Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21’s punitive-damages limitations are facially unconstitutional under the same Ohio constitutional provisions.
3. What burden applies to a party asserting facial unconstitutionality of Ohio legislation regulating tort remedies.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18 is constitutional on its face.
- The court held that Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21 is constitutional on its face.
- The court answered the certified questions in favor of the statutes and against Arbino’s facial challenge.
- The court emphasized a strong presumption of constitutionality and that unconstitutionality must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The case returned to federal court for further proceedings applying Ohio law as construed.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality; facial invalidation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a law is unconstitutional in all applications.
- The Ohio constitutional right to a jury trial protects the jury’s role as factfinder but does not guarantee enforcement of a jury’s damages award free from statutory limits on remedies.
- The Ohio Constitution’s due course of law/open courts/right-to-remedy protections do not freeze common-law measures of damages; the General Assembly may define and limit remedies so long as claimants retain a meaningful avenue for relief.
- Damage-cap classifications are generally reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny when no suspect class or fundamental right is implicated; the legislature may pursue interests such as predictability, economic stability, and limiting excessive awards.
- Regulation of punitive damages is within legislative authority because punitive damages are not a vested substantive right and may be structured or limited as a matter of public policy.
- Substantive limits on liability and remedies do not, by themselves, violate separation of powers where they do not dictate outcomes in individual cases or control judicial procedure.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld, against facial constitutional challenge, statutory limits on noneconomic and punitive damages, concluding that the General Assembly may set substantive outer bounds on tort remedies consistent with Ohio’s jury-trial, due course of law, equal protection, and separation-of-powers guarantees.


Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 880 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2007)