Ohio Senator introduces a bill in response to the Ohio Supreme Court boneless wings ruling
An Ohio Democratic Senator recently introduced a bill in response to last summer's Ohio Supreme Court ruling saying that a man who ordered boneless wings should have expected bones in them and denied him a jury trial after he sustained significant injuries.
State Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, was outraged by the Supreme Court ruling and introduced Senate Bill 38 last month which would look at how the state determines liability when someone is injured by 'negligently prepared food from a restaurant or food supplier,' DeMora said last week in his sponsor testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In 2016, Michael Berkheimer ate boneless wings at a Southwest Ohio restaurant, but felt like he swallowed something wrong. He developed a fever later that night and ended up going to the hospital a couple days later with a 105-degree fever. The doctors discovered a nearly two inch chicken bone in his throat that ripped open the wall of his esophagus.
Berkheimer developed an infection, had to undergo several surgeries, was in two medically induced comas, and had a week-long stay in intensive care.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
He sued the restaurants and their chicken suppliers in 2017, saying 'negligence' led to his injuries. The Butler County Court of Common Pleas and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals sided against Berkheimer and didn't let the case go to trial.
The case went to the Ohio Supreme Court where the majority ruled the lower courts made the right decision. The ruling was four Republicans to three Democrats.
The restaurant wasn't liable 'when the consumer could have reasonably expected and guarded against the presence of the injurious substance in the food,' Ohio Supreme Court Justice Joe Deters wrote in the majority opinion.
This story received national attention and even ended up being a bit on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.'
'What (Berkheimer) went through was horrific, timeconsuming, and costly,' DeMora said in his testimony.
But the bill doesn't focus on Berkheimer's injuries, but rather how judges were the ones who decided his case.
'That's not just wrong,' DeMora said. 'It's a direct assault on the very foundation of our legal system.'
S.B. 38 is trying to change that.
'It will make sure that future cases like Mr. Berkheimer's are heard by a jury – as our Constitution demands,' DeMora said. 'It will also make sure that when determining liability, we use the reasonable expectations test used by most states.'
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Pesticides test MAHA-MAGA alliance
The 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement could be on a collision course with its Republican allies over pesticides and toxic chemicals. MAHA is strongly aligned with the Trump administration, having cheered its anti-vaccine actions and food safety reforms. In general, the movement has been deeply skeptical of Big Pharma, Big Agriculture and Big Chemical. And cracks are beginning to form. MAHA-aligned groups and influencers are particularly raising alarms about provisions in a House appropriations bill that they say will shield pesticide and chemical manufacturers from accountability — and ultimately make Americans less healthy. Meanwhile, a draft of the administration's 'MAHA report' reportedly omits any calls to prevent pesticide exposure, also disappointing advocates. 'It's obvious that there are tensions within this newfound coalition between MAHA and MAGA, and there are some big issues there,' said Mary Holland, CEO of Children's Health Defense, a group that was founded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., considered the MAHA flagbearer. Conservatives have traditionally sided with big business, supporting fewer regulations on potentially toxic substances. Kennedy and his disciples, meanwhile, espouse stricter environmental protections, while also bucking mainstream science on vaccine safety. The disparities on chemicals and pesticides within their coalition put Republicans in the middle: Do they side with big business or health concerns? On many issues, business interests appear to be winning. The New York Times reported last week, based on a draft that it obtained, that a forthcoming iteration of the Trump administration's MAHA positions does not call for new restrictions on pesticides and describes existing procedures as 'robust.' MAHA-aligned activists recoiled. 'The MAHA draft report stating that the EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] pesticide review process is 'robust' is the biggest joke in American history. And it's not funny. It's deadly,' wrote Zen Honeycutt, founder of the activist group Moms Across America, in a post on X. Meanwhile, a Republican-authored House Appropriations bill seeks to block pesticide labels that go beyond what the EPA uses based on its current human health risk assessment. During a markup last month, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chairs the Interior-Environment Appropriations subcommittee, said that the measure says that 'states cannot require a pesticide label that is different from the EPA label.' 'The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,' Simpson said, adding that his comments were meant to be clarifying for all the 'MAHA moms that are out there that are concerned about this that have been calling.' But critics say such a move could prevent the use of updated science on pesticide labels. 'This section, section 453, would basically handcuff EPA, companies and states as well as advocates to … research that could be outdated by over 15 years,' said Geoff Horsfield, policy director at the Environmental Working Group. 'The language in here … says that EPA should only update labels according to the human health risk assessment. EPA, by law, is required to do those human health risk assessments every 15 years, but they often don't complete those in time,' Horsfield said. 'The way the law works currently is states have the power to do additional addendums, and that's where you see, say, a state requires an additional setback so that you can't spray within 250 feet of a school, or you're required to wear additional types of [personal protective equipment],' he continued. 'Those types of restrictions are usually included in a label addendum, and those types of changes and those types of tweaks would be essentially prohibited by this language.' MAHA opponents have particularly expressed concerns over the implications that barring such labeling could have on the ability to sue pesticide companies over inadequate labels. 'Having no access to courts is absolutely devastating and, in my view, unconstitutional,' said Holland, with Children's Health Defense. 'I'm very distressed by this idea that this administration might, for 2026, establish liability protection.' Democrats likewise pushed back on the provision. 'This rider would effectively gag our public health agencies, preventing them from updating labels or rules to reflect new evidence of cancer risks from pesticides,' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said during the markup. 'This bill is a big middle finger to cancer patients.' Also causing controversy is another provision related to 'forever chemicals,' toxic substances that have been linked to illnesses including cancer and have become widespread in the environment. The measure seeks to bar the EPA from enforcing a draft report that found that food from farms contaminated with these chemicals may pose cancer risks. Lexi Hamel, a spokesperson for Simpson, said in an email that the bill 'prohibits funding from implementing, administering, or enforcing the current draft risk assessment due to the major technical flaws in the assessment.' But she said it does not block the EPA from 'continuing to work on identifying ways to clean up PFAS and keep communities safe' and that an amendment changed the bill so that it no longer blocks the agency from finalizing its findings. In a follow-up statement shared through a spokesperson, Horsfield said the provision is still a problem. 'The risk assessment will still have to be implemented and enforced,' he said. 'The draft risk assessment will need teeth … Allowing EPA to finalize the draft risk assessment, but preventing them from implementing it is an exercise in futility.' MAHA activists have slammed both provisions, saying in a letter to President Trump that GOP support for the measures is 'unconscionable.' However, Tony Lyons, president of the MAHA Action PAC, said he does not blame Republicans for pesticides in the environment. 'I don't think that this is something that comes from the GOP side. I think that this is a case of the Democratic Party looking to blame Republicans for it,' Lyons said. While the pesticide issues have generated some sparks between MAHA and MAGA, the administration has taken a number of other actions to also reduce restrictions on the chemical industry more broadly. Trump himself exempted from environmental standards more than 100 polluters, including chemical manufacturers, oil refineries, coal plants and medical device sterilizers. The EPA, meanwhile, has put chemical industry alumni in leading roles and has said it wants to loosen restrictions on emissions of various cancer-linked chemicals. Asked about Trump's move to exempt polluters from Clean Air Act rules, Holland said 'there's clearly tensions' within the GOP coalition. 'Those factions, if you will, more protective of corporate and more challenging to corporate, are both striving to get the president's ear, and I don't think they've come to a complete, sort of settlement agreement,' she said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lab Equipment Market and Supply Chain Forecasts 2025-2030 Featuring Eppendorf, Beckman Coulter, Agilent Technologies, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waters Corp. & More
The Lab Equipment Market is projected to grow at 7% CAGR, driven by increased pharmaceutical R&D, rising chronic disease prevalence, and growing demand for biologics Lab Equipment Market Dublin, Aug. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Lab Equipment Market - Forecasts from 2025 to 2030" has been added to offering. The global lab equipment market foresees significant expansion, projected to grow from USD 19.507 billion in 2025 to USD 27.310 billion by 2030, registering a CAGR of 6.96%. This growth trajectory is underpinned by dynamic factors, anticipated to propel the market. Pharmaceutical R&D investments are a primary catalyst, with global spending reaching USD 280 billion in 2024, focusing on groundbreaking drugs and biologics. Streamlined clinical trial processes, exemplified by the European Medicines Agency's fast-track schemes reducing approval times, emphasize the demand for cutting-edge lab equipment essential for drug discovery. Chronic disease prevalence, including cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular conditions, further accelerates market demand. In 2024, the U.S. recorded 1.9 million new cancer cases, underlining the urgency for advanced diagnostics and drug development. The rising chronic disease burden globally, particularly in aging populations, intensifies the need for sophisticated lab tools. Biologics, derived from living organisms, represent a rapidly growing market segment, accounting for a substantial portion of the pharmaceutical pipeline in 2024. With 40% of clinical trials targeting biologics, specialized lab equipment becomes indispensable for development and testing, driving market expansion. Segment-wise, the sensing equipment category, including spectrometers and conductivity meters, dominates due to its pivotal role in precise diagnostics and drug development. Biopharmaceutical companies hold the largest market share, bolstered by substantial R&D budgets and specialized equipment requirements. Government and academic institutions also contribute significantly, with increased public funding for health research. Geographically, North America leads with over 35% of global lab equipment revenue, supported by advanced healthcare infrastructure. Meanwhile, Asia-Pacific emerges as the fastest-growing region, buoyed by a rising incidence of chronic diseases and increased pharmaceutical investments. Europe's growth is reinforced by regulatory backing for innovative therapies. Key industry players, including Eppendorf AG and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., dominate due to robust brand reputations and innovative product offerings. For instance, in 2023, Thermo Fisher launched advanced spectrometry equipment for biologics research, enhancing precision and driving market leadership. Nevertheless, the market faces challenges such as high costs of advanced equipment and the requisite skilled personnel for operating complex systems. Regulatory requirements often delay market entry, necessitating continuous innovation to meet compliance standards. This report provides: Market insights spanning major and emerging regions, focusing on consumer tendencies and industry verticals. Understanding of strategies employed by global key players. Exploration of market drivers and future trends. Actionable insights for strategic business decisions. Catering to startups, research institutions, SMEs, and large enterprises. Report Highlights: Historical data (2022-2024) and forecast (2025-2030). Analysis of growth opportunities, challenges, and regional trends. Strategies and market share analysis of leading companies. Revenue growth projections by segments and regions. Company profiling, strategic developments, and product information. Lab Equipment Market Segmentation: By Type: Analytical Instruments, General Lab Equipment, Measuring & Monitoring Devices, Specialty Equipment, Support Equipment. By End-User: Academic & Research Institutes, Biopharmaceutical & Pharmaceutical Companies, Healthcare & Diagnostic Labs, Government & Regulatory Bodies, Industrial & Manufacturing, Others. By Geography: North America, South America, Europe, Middle East and Africa, Asia-Pacific. Key Attributes Report Attribute Details No. of Pages 150 Forecast Period 2025-2030 Estimated Market Value (USD) in 2025 $19.51 Billion Forecasted Market Value (USD) by 2030 $27.31 Billion Compound Annual Growth Rate 6.9% Regions Covered Global Key Topics Covered1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY2. MARKET SNAPSHOT2.1. Market Overview2.2. Market Definition2.3. Scope of the Study2.4. Market Segmentation3. BUSINESS LANDSCAPE3.1. Market Drivers3.2. Market Restraints3.3. Market Opportunities3.4. Porter's Five Forces Analysis3.5. Industry Value Chain Analysis3.6. Policies and Regulations3.7. Strategic Recommendations4. TECHNOLOGICAL OUTLOOK5. GLOBAL LAB EQUIPMENT MARKET BY TYPE5.1. Introduction5.2. Analytical Instruments5.3. General Lab Equipment5.4. Measuring & Monitoring Devices5.5. Specialty Equipment5.6. Support Equipment6. GLOBAL LAB EQUIPMENT MARKET BY END-USER6.1. Introduction6.2. Academic & Research Institutes6.3. Biopharmaceutical & Pharmaceutical Companies6.4. Healthcare & Diagnostic Labs6.5. Government & Regulatory Bodies6.6. Industrial & Manufacturing6.7. Others7. GLOBAL LAB EQUIPMENT MARKET BY GEOGRAPHY7.1. Introduction7.2. North America7.3. South America7.4. Europe7.5. Middle East and Africa7.6. Asia-Pacific8. COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT AND ANALYSIS8.1. Major Players and Strategy Analysis8.2. Market Share Analysis8.3. Mergers, Acquisitions, Agreements, and Collaborations8.4. Competitive Dashboard9. COMPANY PROFILES9.1. Eppendorf AG9.2. Beckman Coulter, Inc.9.3. Agilent Technologies, Inc.9.4. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.9.5. Waters Corporation9.6. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd9.7. Shimadzu Corporation9.8. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.9.9. PerkinElmer Inc.10. APPENDIX For more information about this report visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. Attachment Lab Equipment Market CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Democrats try to force nuns to pay for abortions. Sounds authoritarian to me.
Blue states like California and Pennsylvania refuse to leave the Little Sisters of the Poor alone – and couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. The Little Sisters of the Poor are back in the news. In case you've forgotten who they are and why they matter, let's briefly review what they're all about. According to the group's website, the Little Sisters' mission is to ensure that "the elderly and dying are cared for with love and dignity until God calls them home.' The Little Sisters work in 31 countries and began work in America in 1868. Today, the nuns operate about 20 homes in the United States. It's a lovely mission and one that they should be allowed to do in peace, free from interference from the government. No such luck, however. Blue states like California and Pennsylvania refuse to leave the Little Sisters alone and couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. Since the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act birth control mandate that required employers to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance plans, the Little Sisters have been locked in a legal battle for the past 14 years. Despite clear wins for the nuns and religious liberty at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 and 2020, Democrats continue to persecute the Little Sisters. Will they ever stop? Will the Little Sisters have to make a third trip to the Supreme Court? That's 'absurd.' A federal district court in Philadelphia has revived the vindictive fight, siding with Pennsylvania and New Jersey against a 2017 Trump administration religious conscience rule, which offered the nuns and other religious groups protection from the mandate. Now, these states want the Little Sisters to offer contraception and abortion drugs or face millions of dollars in fines. 'The district court blessed an out-of-control effort by Pennsylvania and New Jersey to attack the Little Sisters and religious liberty,' Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, said in a statement. 'It is absurd to think the Little Sisters might need yet another trip to the Supreme Court to end what has now been more than a dozen years of litigation over the same issue.' The Little Sisters will appeal this decision, but it truly is ridiculous that they must waste time fighting the government in this way, when all they want to do is serve people in need. And lest you think it's odd to be talking about nuns and contraception, the Little Sisters employ lay people who work as nurses, cooks and serve other roles in the group's homes for the elderly. The nuns don't want to be complicit in providing services that directly violate their deep belief in the sanctity of life, which guides their work. They shouldn't have to. There are other ways the government could provide contraceptives to these employees without pushing the nuns to do it. Progressives claim Trump is an authoritarian. They should look at themselves. For all the times we've been scolded about how Trump and his supporters are fascists and Nazis, progressives ought to take a hard look at themselves first. Democrats have decided their views on culture are the only ones that should matter, religious liberty be damned. Look at how liberal governments have gone after Catholic adoption agencies, Christian bakers, website designers and farmers and tried to force them to betray their faith just to participate in the public square. These are often yearslong court battles, much like the Little Sisters have undertaken. Thankfully, we have a strong First Amendment that protects our speech and religious freedom. And the Supreme Court keeps ruling on the side of protecting these essential liberties, which are promised in our Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in writing the majority for the 2020 case, observed that the Little Sisters 'have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.' Five years later, the fight continues. It's time for Democrats to leave these nuns alone. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
