OPMS Kratom: What Did the Warning Actually Say?

The case in plain English

Kathleen Moller brought a wrongful-death lawsuit alleging that OPMS Silver kratom products caused the death of her daughter, Harmony Moller, in February 2023. This set of court records concerns one specific dispute: whether the jury should hear the opinions of warning-label researcher Dr. Sarah D. Kowitt.

In a November 12, 2025 report filed as Exhibit 1, Kowitt concluded that the warnings on packages found near Harmony Moller were inadequate. On March 2, 2026, defendant JOpen asked the court to exclude her testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The filing is a motion, not a ruling.

The strongest evidence for lawmakers

1. The label said kratom could be “dangerous,” but did not identify the danger. Kowitt points to the phrase “ingesting Mitragyna Speciosa can be dangerous” and argues it did not tell buyers about the specific risks. Expert report, PDF p. 3 →

2. Serious risks had appeared in published research before the death. Kowitt cites a 2019 poison-center study describing seizures, withdrawal, respiratory depression, coma, and cardiac or respiratory arrest among reported exposures. Those are reported clinical events, not proof that each exposure was caused solely by kratom. Report, PDF pp. 3–4 →

3. The report cites testimony that the company knew of FDA warnings. Kowitt quotes Mark Reilly’s deposition as acknowledging awareness in 2021–2022 that FDA had linked kratom to adverse reports including death and dependence. The underlying testimony should be consulted for full context. Report, PDF p. 4 →

4. No dose or frequency instructions appeared on the package, according to the expert. Kowitt says the packaging did not tell users how much to consume or how often, nor how to recognize or respond to adverse effects. Report, PDF p. 4 →

5. “Botanical specimen” conflicted with intended human use. Kowitt contrasts the package wording with deposition testimony she says acknowledged the product was intended to be consumed by people. Report, PDF p. 5 →

6. The warning was reportedly written by an attorney, not a warnings expert. In her conclusion, Kowitt cites Reilly’s deposition testimony that no scientific or warnings experts wrote the product warning. Report, PDF p. 6 →

Why the distinction matters

Kowitt’s criticism is about the information a buyer received at the point of sale. A statement that a product might be dangerous is not the same as naming seizures, dependence, or potentially fatal outcomes. Nor is a referral to a website necessarily a substitute for an understandable warning on the package itself.

What the defense argues

JOpen argues that Kowitt’s background is in public-health warning communication, not medical toxicology or the product-specific science required under Louisiana product-liability law. It says her approach relies on general warning-design principles without sufficiently tying them to OPMS Silver or the legally relevant time period. The defense asks the judge to prevent her from testifying. Read the defense memorandum →

The documents provided do not establish whether the court ultimately admitted or excluded her opinions. The proposed order included with the motion is unsigned.

Read the original PACER documents

These six original PACER PDFs are filed under their docket numbers in the centralized OPMS court-record archive.

Source: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc. et al., case 2:24-cv-00228, docket 239 and attachments, filed March 2, 2026.

Important: These are allegations, expert opinions, and advocacy by opposing parties. They should not be presented as factual findings by the court.