When she decided to use a birth control patch in 2005, Anderson Township's Melisa Arbino had no idea she would be thrust into a legal fight that aims to declare an Ohio law unconstitutional and is being watched nationally.
Now 26, Arbino was 24 at the time and had given birth to her only child six weeks earlier.
Arbino's doctor gave her samples of Johnson Johnson's Ortho Evra, a prescription patch applied three times monthly, because she didn't want to get pregnant right away.

Within two weeks, she was in the hospital, fighting for her life and she blames the patch.
"They said I was minutes from death," Arbino said Wednesday from the downtown office of her attorney, Janet Abaray.

The Ortho Evra patch went on the market in 2002. It has higher doses of estrogen than a birth-control pill, as much as 60 percent higher.
Several studies have shown that results in blood clots forming on the brains and lungs of women using the patch.

Dozens of heart attacks, strokes and deaths also are attributed to the Ortho Evra patch.
A Johnson Johnson spokeswoman said Wednesday that the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.
Arbino's suit, filed in Cincinnati in 2005, is important because it challenges a two-year-old Ohio law that caps the amount of money plaintiffs can win in suits.

"The only issue is money. The business community doesn't want to be liable for damage done to the community," Abaray said.
Arbino had two clots on her brain when she entered the hospital in July 2005.

When she woke up, her head had been shaved and she had a tube sticking out of it to relieve the pressure on her brain.
After a week in the hospital, she was given blood thinners and sent home. She returned a week later with blood clots on her lungs.

Now, she has to live the rest of her life with the complications she insists are from taking the Ortho Evra patch.
She wants more children, but any pregnancy she has will be high-risk. She has MRIs every three months to make sure there are no more clots.

"It's an ongoing process forever," Arbino said. "I'm furious but at the same time I'm happy to be alive to be with my son."
Arbino and her attorney also are upset at the Johnson Johnson for not doing more to inform users of its dangers - so much so that they sued the company in 2005.

That suit is drawing attention across the state and the country.
That's because it seeks to overturn a 2005 Ohio law that caps the amount of money that can be awarded in court cases. The caps are about $350,000 to compensate someone and twice that in punitive damages.

Before that 2005 law, a jury decided the amount of money to be awarded.
The suit is being heard by the Ohio Supreme Court because the suit challenges the constitutionality of that law.
That's where Abaray argued Tuesday that the law should be thrown out.

Abaray won't say how much money Arbino wants from Johnson Johnson, but said whatever the amount, it should be decided by a jury, and not by Ohio lawmakers.
Johnson Johnson's defense in the suit is it has done nothing wrong and Ohio's law caps the amount of money Arbino can get if she wins.
Money is important to send a message, Arbino said, but she also wants the company to fully reveal its product's dangers.

"They still don't tell you it can kill you," Arbino said.
Because it will cost Abaray at least $100,000 to prepare for the case to go to trial, even if Arbino wins, she's likely to receive no money - a result that could have a chilling affect on others considering filing lawsuits in Ohio.
The Ohio Supreme Court isn't expected to rule on the suit for months.

1. This is the link to the Ohio Supreme Court and the Arbino case:
2. Go to and then click on Melisa Arbino v.

Johnson Johnson et al., Case No.