Missouri Appeals Court Reverses $110M Talc Verdict Against J&J
Tuesday's ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals found that the Virginia plaintiff, Lois Slemp, who alleged she got ovarian cancer in 2012 from using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder, had no jurisdiction to bring her case in Missouri under the U.S. Supreme Court's Bristol-Myers ruling.
October 15, 2019 at 06:47 PM
4 minute read
A Missouri appeals court has reversed a $110 million talcum powder verdict against Johnson & Johnson.
Tuesday's ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals found that the Virginia plaintiff, Lois Slemp, who alleged she got ovarian cancer in 2012 from using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder, had no jurisdiction to bring her case in Missouri under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California. The ruling wipes out the fourth verdict in a St. Louis courtroom that helped launch much of the ovarian cancer litigation against Johnson & Johnson.
"The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled correctly in overturning a $110 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson," wrote Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Jennifer Taylor. "Of the four verdicts that Johnson & Johnson has appealed to this court, all four have been reversed."
Johnson & Johnson's attorney in the appeal was Thomas Weaver, a partner at Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis.
Slemp's attorney in the appeal, Edward "Chip" Robertson, a partner at Leawood, Kansas-based Bartimus Frickleton Robertson and former chief judge of the Missouri Supreme Court, did not return a call for comment. But Ted Meadows, of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, who represented Slemp during trial, said in a statement that he planned to petition the Missouri Supreme Court.
The Slemp case dates back to 2017, when a jury issued its award, which included $105 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson. The verdict was the fourth in Missouri, with three other women, all from other states, previously obtaining awards of $55 million, $72 million and $70 million.
But Bristol-Myers has thrown a wrench into the Missouri verdicts on appeal. In Bristol-Myers, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs who sued over injuries attributed to blood thinner Plavix had failed to establish specific jurisdiction because there wasn't enough of a link between their claims and California, where they brought their case.
Plaintiffs lawyers hoping to affirm the talcum powder verdicts in St. Louis had attempted to introduce evidence of a Missouri talc supplier that served as a distributor to Johnson & Johnson. That supplier, Pharma Tech, established jurisdiction under Bristol-Myers, they argued.
In 2017, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the $72 million verdict, concluding that it could not allow new discovery given the "advanced posture" of the case. The appeals court made similar findings as to the $55 million verdict in 2018 and the $70 million verdict on June 18 of this year.
Slemp's case originally involved 62 plaintiffs, 61 of whom, including Slemp, were not from Missouri. But St. Louis Judge Rex Burlison upheld Slemp's jury award, finding for the first time that the new evidence was sufficient to overcome Bristol-Myers.
The Missouri Court of Appeals disagreed. Its eight-page ruling also applies to Imerys Talc America Inc., another defendant that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last year.
The Missouri Supreme Court has shut down many planned talcum powder trials. Earlier this year, the high court halted a Jan. 22 trial of 13 women and an April 8 trial of 24 women when it granted petitions for a writ of prohibition filed by both Johnson & Johnson and Imerys, which cited Bristol-Myers. Those planned trials would have followed a $4.7 billion verdict for 22 women last year that Johnson & Johnson has appealed after Burlison upheld the award, citing its "reprehensible conduct."
On Feb. 13, an en banc panel of the Missouri Supreme Court, taking up separate precedent decisions involving jurisdiction in Missouri, found that a Missouri resident, Michael Blaes, whose wife died of ovarian cancer in 2010, lacked jurisdiction to pursue his claims in St. Louis because he didn't live there.
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
© 2025 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 AllThe Right Amount?: Federal Judge Weighs $1.8M Attorney Fee Request with Strip Club's $15K Award
Skadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readTrial Court Had No Authority to Reopen Voir Dire After Jury Impaneled in Civil Case, State Appellate Court Rules
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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