The Ohio Supreme Court has determined that caps on damagesettlements do not violate the state's Constitution, climaxing a27-year effort by the state Legislature to write legislationimposing such limits that can pass legal muster.

Four other efforts by the state Legislature since 1975 to limitdamage awards had been rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court asunconstitutional.

Thursday's court decision affirms a state law passed in April2005 capping the amount of noneconomic “pain and suffering” damagesthat can be awarded to personal injury plaintiffs at $250,000, orthree times the amount of economic damages, whichever is greater,up to a combined limit of $350,000–with the exception forplaintiffs who suffer permanent or major injuries.

The bill also limited the amount of punitive damages that can beawarded in Ohio tort actions to no more than twice the amount ofthe plaintiff's compensatory damages from the same defendant.

The court acted by a 5-2 majority.

“In its continued pursuit of reform, the General Assembly hasmade progress in tailoring its legislation to address theconstitutional defects identified by the various majorities of thiscourt,” the court said.

The court found that the latest law governing damages wassufficiently “different from the previous enactments” so as to“warrant a fresh review of their individual merits,” the majorityadded.

Justice Paul Pfeifer dissented from the decision, contendingthat a judge's automatic reduction of jury-determined noneconomicdamages to the law's caps denied plaintiffs their right to a trialby jury. He also contended that, according to the majority, nothingprevents the General Assembly from limiting noneconomic damages to$1.

“After today, what meaning is left in a litigant'sconstitutional right to have a jury determine damages?” hewrote.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell issued an opinion partiallydissenting from the majority, also contending that the decisionwould hinder a plaintiff's right to have damages determined by ajury.

The case in question, Arbino vs. Johnson & Johnson, et al,was brought by Melisa Arbino of Cincinnati, who is suing Johnson& Johnson and its Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. unit,claiming use of its Ortho-McNeil birth control patch caused her tosuffer “blood clots and other serious medical side effects.”

The case was referred to the state's high court by Ohio U.S.District Court Judge David Katz after plaintiff's lawyers arguedthat caps contained in the 2005 law violated the OhioConstitution.

His request for a ruling came before a determination of thecase's merits and before any ruling as to damages owed thedefendant, according to Janet Arbury, the attorney representing Ms.Arbino.

Mark Behrens, a lawyer with Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., inWashington, D.C., said the decision reflected the more conservativemakeup of the current Ohio Supreme Court and its willingness to“restrain its role as a super-legislative body.”

Shook, Hardy & Bacon submitted a friend of the court briefin the case on behalf of a number of business groups, including theProperty Casualty Insurers Association of America and the NationalAssociation of Mutual Insurance Companies.

The brief argued, “The vast majority of state law has been, andshould continue to be, decided by states. But state legislaturesalso have an important, overlapping role to play in the developmentof tort law.”

The brief added, “Decisions from the Supreme Court of Ohio showthat, historically, this court recognized and respected theprerogative of the General Assembly to develop rules governingconduct, property and other key policy issues for the state.”