In the case of Est. of Mehrer v. Walgreens Specialty Pharm., 2023-Ohio-2070, an appellate court held that summary judgment was inappropriate when the expert testified that the pharmacy’s dispersal of opioids may have been the proximate cause of a decedent’s overdose.
In this case, the decedent’s estate argued that the pharmacy’s over dispensing of opioids to the decedent caused the decedent to become addicted and ultimately overdose. In response, the pharmacy argued that the time period between dispersal and death was too far remote. The appellate court agreed with the estate.
In support of its decision in favor of the estate, the appellate court explained that an affidavit from a doctor that concluded there was “a causal connection between the prescribed opioids in 2009, the decedent’s diagnosis of opioid use disorder, and untimely death in 2017” provided the requisite basis for the case to see a jury. 2023-Ohio-2070, ¶ 25. The appellate court further explained that:
It is easy to see how the trial court misconstrued the facts regarding causation in this case. To be sure, the period between the dispensing of the drugs to the decedent’s overdose is significant. However, addiction is a “long-term, chronic, and relapsing disease” that is complex to evaluate in this context. Here, the goal of summary judgment is not to try issues of fact but to assess whether issues of fact exist.
Id. at ¶ 31.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.