Dec 10 (Reuters) - Ohio's top court ruled on Tuesday

that pharmacy chain operators CVS, Walmart ( WMT ) and

Walgreens could not be held liable for fueling an opioid

epidemic in two counties in the state that won a $650.9-million

judgment against them.

The Ohio Supreme Court held on a 5-2 vote that a state law

barred Lake and Trumbull counties' claims that the dispensing of

addictive pain medications by the pharmacy chains created a

public nuisance that the companies should be forced to address.

Justice Joseph Deters, writing for the majority, said the

court recognized that the deadly epidemic had touched the lives

of people throughout Ohio and "undoubtedly has far-reaching

consequences for their communities and for the state as a

whole."

"Creating a solution to this crisis out of whole cloth is,

however, beyond this court's authority," Deters wrote.

He said an amendment to the Ohio Products Liability Act that

the state legislature adopted in 2007 barred all common-law

public nuisance claims based on the sale of products that seek

compensation from a product's manufacturer or supplier.

Representatives for the companies and counties did not

immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case was the first the three pharmacy operators had

faced at trial of the thousands of lawsuits filed by states and

local governments against drugmakers, distributors and

pharmacies over the U.S. opioid addiction epidemic.

A federal jury in Cleveland concluded in 2021 that an

oversupply of addictive pain pills and the diversion of those

opioids to the black market created a public nuisance in the

counties, and that the pharmacies helped cause it.

U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, who oversees the federal

litigation over the opioid epidemic, ordered CVS, Walmart ( WMT ) and

Walgreens following the trial to pay a combined $650.9 million

to help the two counties address, or abate, the harms caused by

the epidemic.

The companies appealed, prompting the 6th U.S. Circuit Court

of Appeals last year to ask the Ohio Supreme Court to review the

matter, saying it raised "novel and unresolved questions" of

state law that it should address first.