Missouri Appeals Court Weighs J&J's Bid to Reverse $4.7B Talc Verdict
"If this is not an abuse of discretion, if this didn't warrant separate trials, I can't imagine a case that would," Johnson & Johnson attorney Thomas Weaver told the Missouri Court of Appeals on Friday. Kevin Parker, of The Lanier Law Firm, argued to retain the record jury award, despite previous appeal reversals in other talc verdicts.
April 24, 2020 at 05:43 PM
4 minute read
The Missouri Court of Appeals appeared disinclined to question a jury's $4.7 billion talcum powder verdict but raised numerous jurisdictional questions about why the case against New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson was in Missouri.
The case involved 22 women and their families alleging Johnson & Johnson's baby powder, which contained asbestos, caused them to get ovarian cancer. On Friday, Johnson & Johnson attorney Thomas Weaver argued to reverse the verdict, focusing in large part on the fact that the judge should never have joined the claims of so many plaintiffs into a single trial, particularly since 17 of them were not from Missouri. He claimed that doing so prejudiced the jury, which awarded $25 million in compensatory damages to each plaintiff in 2018.
"If this is not an abuse of discretion, if this didn't warrant separate trials, I can't imagine a case that would," said Weaver, of Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis.
The panel of three judges appeared skeptical about challenging 22nd Circuit Judge Rex Burlison's order consolidated the claims, or the reasoning behind the jury's record award.
"How do we know what the jury was thinking?" said Philip Hess, one of the judges on the panel.
Kurt Odenwald, another panelist, asked plaintiffs attorney Kevin Parker, of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston, multiple questions about the connections Johnson & Johnson had with Missouri, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California. 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.
The appeal is the latest in Missouri to involve a talcum powder verdict. Last year, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed a $110 million award based on Bristol-Myers because the plaintiff was from Virginia, and previously reversed verdicts of $72 million, $70 million and $55 million on similar grounds. The Missouri Supreme Court also shut down several talcum powder trials involving multiple women originally planned for last year when it granted petitions for a writ of prohibition that Johnson & Johnson and another defendant, talc supplier Imerys Talc America Inc., had filed based on Bristol-Myers.
The reversed verdicts, however, involved a single plaintiff and predated Bristol-Myers. In the case now before the Missouri Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs attempted to establish jurisdiction by presenting evidence of a Missouri talc supplier, Pharma Tech Industries, which served as a distributor to Johnson & Johnson. On Friday, the appeals panel asked several questions about the Pharma Tech contract, which supplied Johnson & Johnson for some, but not all, of its products.
They appeared less receptive to Weaver's argument that the jury was prejudiced in its verdict because plaintiffs attorneys were "homogenizing all the plaintiffs' claims," which originated in other states and involved different cancer stories.
Combining such myriad claims of so many people "defies human nature and common sense," Weaver told them at the hearing.
"It's impossible to suggest that they could have considered all this evidence and analyzed these claims on an individual basis, and then the record reflects that they didn't," he said, noting that the jury spent only eight hours deliberating.
Parker, in response, said the case had a "highly attentive jury."
"These people took their task seriously," he said of jurors. "The court should not just assume they were overwhelmed."
In its appeal briefs, Johnson & Johnson also raised numerous issues with plaintiffs' experts, including William Longo, founder of Materials Analytical Services, who testified on Capitol Hill last year. The briefs also accused plaintiffs attorneys of mischaracterizing Missouri law on causation in their closing argument, to which another panelist, Lisa Page, replied Friday, "The jury had the proper instructions in front of them, correct?"
Friday's hearing touched briefly on another issue: the constitutionality of and evidence supporting $4.14 billion in punitive damages in the jury's award. In 2018, Burlison affirmed the $4.7 billion award, citing Johnson & Johnson's "reprehensible conduct."
The hearing, which was limited to two lawyers for each side and broadcast on Facebook, comes after the Missouri Court of Appeals on April 8 ordered in-person oral arguments canceled due to the coronavirus outbreak. Between arguments Friday, a gloved member of the court staff wiped down the podium and microphone.
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 All'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readState High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Transgender Woman Awarded $150K Default Judgment Against Corrections Officer for Alleged Assault
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
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