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
© 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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Who Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 2Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
- 3Florida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
- 4Supreme Court Drops Facebook's Appeal in Securities Case as 'Improvidently Granted'
- 5Newsmakers: Scott Bailey Joins Jones Day’s Corporate Practice in Dallas
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