J&J Gains Defense Verdict in 1st Trial Linking Talc Product to Mesothelioma
A California jury has sided with Johnson & Johnson in the first trial over whether its iconic baby powder caused a woman to get mesothelioma.
November 16, 2017 at 02:53 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com.
A California jury has sided with Johnson & Johnson in the first trial over whether its iconic baby powder caused a woman to get mesothelioma.
The Nov. 16 verdict came in a trial that began on Oct. 19 in Los Angeles Superior Court. The jury found that Johnson & Johnson did not negligently manufacture or design its baby powder and Shower to Shower products or fail to warn that its talcum powder products caused mesothelioma, according to coverage of the trial by Courtroom View Network. The jury also sided with Imerys Talc America Inc., a talc supplier, in its verdict.
The trial is separate from the nearly 5,000 cases alleging Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products caused women to get ovarian cancer. In those cases, juries in Missouri and California have come out with five verdicts ranging from $55 million to $417 million—though two awards have since been tossed out. Unlike those cases, which have focused on the alleged links between Johnson & Johnson's talc products and ovarian cancer, the mesothelioma cases target whether cosmetic talc products contained asbestos, which is known to cause mesothelioma.
“We are pleased with today's verdict and believe that the dismissal of talc lawsuits in New Jersey and verdict reversals in Missouri and California have forced plaintiff attorneys to pivot to yet another baseless theory,” said Carol Goodrich, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman. “Johnson's baby powder has been around since 1894 and it does not contain asbestos or cause mesothelioma or ovarian cancer. We will continue to defend the safety of Johnson's baby powder in future trials.”
Lead plaintiffs attorney Chris Panatier of Dallas-based Simon Greenstone Panatier said the verdict would have little effect on future trials.
“The talc/asbestos case is extremely complicated, dealing with all manner of microscopic techniques and mineralogy etc.,” he wrote in an email. “It's our job to make all of that accessible and though I tried to do that, perhaps it wasn't enough. Also, from my conversations with a few of the jurors, it sounded like this simply was not a jury that was going to find for a plaintiff. I accept that. It happens.”
He said Johnson & Johnson was still selling “contaminated baby powder.”
“It is a matter of time before juries begin holding them to account,” he wrote. “We just missed on the first one.”
The trial is the latest to bring asbestos claims over talc-based cosmetic products. Other suits have been brought against Colgate-Palmolive Co. and talc distributor Whittaker, Clark & Daniels Inc. over such products as Old Spice, Cashmere Bouquet and Desert Flower. In 2013, a New Jersey jury in Middlesex County Superior Court awarded a $1.6 million verdict against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels. The company lost again on April 7, when a Manhattan Supreme Court jury awarded $16.5 million to a plaintiff.
On Oct. 27, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded $18.07 million against the company in another case handled by Panatier. In that case, the firm represented former Los Angeles mayoral aide Philip Depoian, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015.
Simon Greenstone also secured a $13 million asbestos verdict against Colgate-Palmolive in 2015.
Colgate-Palmolive has moved to dismiss the first asbestos-related talc case in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas after a judge barred two plaintiffs' experts from testifying on some causation issues.
In the Los Angeles case, the plaintiff, Tina Herford, claimed she got mesothelioma after using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.
“She used the product for 35 years and got mesothelioma,” said Panatier at Monday's closing arguments, according to Courtroom View Network's coverage. He dotted the courtroom with actual red flags to demonstrate that Johnson & Johnson knew it had an asbestos problem but didn't do anything to change its talc products.
In court, defense lawyers argued that other exposures—such as therapeutic radiation treatments and clothing worn by her father, who was exposed to asbestos at his job—may have caused Herford's mesothelioma.
“It's a red flag about whether you're hearing the whole story from the plaintiffs,” said Johnson & Johnson attorney Morton Dubin, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in New York, in closing arguments on Monday, according to Courtroom View Network. Johnson & Johnson also was represented at trial by Orrick partner Peter Bicks; Sharla Frost, a partner at Tucker Ellis in Houston; and King & Spalding partner Alexander Calfo in Los Angeles. Imerys was represented by Alston & Bird partners Todd Benoff and Peter Masaitis, both in Los Angeles.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAustin Appeals Court Rejects Free Speech Defense in Attorney's $2.9M Disgorgement Suit
4 minute readBaker & Hostetler to Open Austin Office With 10-Lawyer Locke Lord Affordable Housing Team
5 minute readAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250