A wrongful-death case involving ordinary kratom leaf powder, competing medical explanations, and the evidence each side proposed for trial.
This filing offers something unusual in a disputed kratom death case: a short list of facts both sides agree on, followed by their sharply different explanations of what happened.
Kathleen Moller brought a wrongful-death and product-liability lawsuit after her daughter, Harmony Moller, died on February 6, 2023. The product at issue is OPMS Silver kratom. The plaintiff alleges kratom caused a fatal cardiac event and that the product was unreasonably dangerous and inadequately labeled. The defendants deny causation and point to other medical and toxicological factors.
The joint filing expressly lists these as uncontested: Harmony Moller died February 6, 2023; an autopsy and limited toxicology screen were performed; mitragynine was detected; promethazine and diphenhydramine were also detected; and two unopened OPMS kratom packages were found at her residence. Source: Document 313, PDF page 9.
The presence of two unopened packages does not, by itself, establish how much kratom was consumed. Nor does detection of a drug, by itself, prove it caused a death.
The defense identifies the product at issue as OPMS Silver, a pure kratom leaf powder, rather than a manufactured 7-OH concentrate. The plaintiff alleges the product was defective and lacked adequate warning of potential cardiac death. Source: Document 313, PDF pages 8–9.
This makes the case relevant to lawmakers considering whether rules directed only at concentrated or synthetic kratom derivatives address all allegations involving conventional kratom products. It does not establish that ordinary leaf powder caused this death.
Plaintiff’s position: OPMS kratom ingestion caused sudden cardiac arrest and the product’s design and warnings were inadequate. The plaintiff also alleges several defendants operated as a single business enterprise.
Defense position: Other medications and an anatomical coronary abnormality better explain the fatal arrhythmia. The defense cites diphenhydramine, promethazine, other detected substances, and a disputed interpretation of the mitragynine concentration. Source: Document 313, PDF pages 8–11.
The defense section reports a mitragynine concentration of 150 ng/mL. That figure appears among the defendants’ listed issues, not in the five-item uncontested-facts list. It should not be presented as a court-established fatal threshold.
The plaintiff alleges inadequate warnings about cardiac death and claims multiple entities participated in the product’s supply chain. The defendants dispute the alleged enterprise and describe distinct roles for the trademark owner, distributor, logistics provider and manufacturer. Source: Document 313, PDF pages 3–4 and 8–9.
For legislators, the questions are practical: Who is responsible for the warning? Who controls the product specifications? Which company can regulators hold accountable when several entities participate in getting a botanical product to market? The filing raises these questions but does not resolve them.
The plaintiff’s proposed exhibit index names autopsy and toxicology records, FDA import alerts, warning letters, product-package photographs, and research materials. The defense’s index includes product specifications, labeling and disclaimers, production records, medical records, and investigative materials. These attachments are indexes of proposed evidence, not the underlying exhibits. Their inclusion does not prove the contents were admitted or accepted by the court.
The fourth PDF identifies deposition page and line ranges selected by the defense from coroner Dr. Michael DeFatta’s testimony. It is not a transcript and does not establish the substance of his answers.
The central policy issue is not whether the parties agree kratom killed Harmony Moller. They do not. It is that a fatality lawsuit involving ordinary kratom leaf powder has placed product safety, labeling, toxicology, and corporate accountability squarely in dispute.
A responsible reading must distinguish agreed facts from plaintiff allegations, defense assertions, proposed evidence, and actual court rulings. This page does not suggest the defendants have been found liable.
Four original PACER PDFs are linked below by their original docket filenames. Page counts include PACER cover pages where applicable.
Source and status: Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc., et al., Eastern District of Louisiana, PACER Documents 313 and 313-1 through 313-3, filed March 11, 2026. The judge’s signature line on the supplied pretrial order is blank. This page does not independently verify subsequent rulings or trial outcomes.
