Johnson & Johnson Wins Verdict in New Jersey Talcum Powder Trial
After two mistrials in similar cases that had juries in Los Angeles deliberating for days, a New Jersey jury took just half an hour to decide that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder did not cause a woman to get mesothelioma.
October 11, 2018 at 02:36 PM
4 minute read
|
A jury has come back with a verdict in the latest talcum powder trial—and it's for the defense.
Following two mistrials in similar cases that had juries in Los Angeles deliberating for days, a jury in New Jersey took just a half an hour to decide that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder did not cause a woman to get mesothelioma, a deadly lung cancer.
Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Kimberly Montagnino said the jury's verdict was unanimous and “consistent with decades of clinical evidence and scientific studies.”
“We have deep sympathy for anyone diagnosed with any form of cancer and appreciate that people are looking for answers,” Montagnino wrote in an email to Law.com. “However, Johnson's Baby Powder is not the cause of this disease. Over the past 50 years, multiple independent, non-litigation driven scientific evaluations have been conducted by respected academic institutions and government bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and none have found that the talc in Johnson's Baby Powder contains asbestos.”
Johnson & Johnson was represented by Diane Sullivan and Allison Brown, partners in the Princeton, New Jersey, office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
Christopher Swett, an associate in the Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, office of Motley Rice, represented Rosalind Henry, diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2016, and her husband, Fred. He and Motley Rice member Nathan Finch, in Washington, D.C., said in an email to Law.com that it was a “hard fought trial” in which another defendant, Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes Cashmere Bouquet products, settled just before opening statements.
“Our investigation showed that the only potential sources of [Henry's] asbestos exposure were from cosmetic talcum powder used on herself (Cashmere Bouquet) and to diaper her children (Johnson and Johnson),” they wrote. “We continue to believe that Johnson and Johnson's internal documents show that the talc it sourced from Vermont is contaminated with asbestos, and we will continue to push these cases to trial every chance we get.”
The trial, which began on Sept. 17, took place in Middlesex County Superior Court.
This week's trial is the eighth alleging Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products caused mesothelioma. Four others—three in Los Angeles Superior Court and one in Darlington County Circuit Court in South Carolina—ended in mistrials.
Swett also handled the South Carolina trial, in which the plaintiff was the widow of a lawyer who died in 2017 at age 30.
The first trial ended with a defense verdict on Nov. 16 in Los Angeles Superior Court. This year, another Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded $25.75 million, and a Middlesex County Superior Court in New Jersey came out with a $117 million verdict.
Judges in Los Angeles Superior Court declared mistrials on Oct. 2 and Sept. 24, with one of them going extra lengths to assist the jury in reaching a verdict. Dallas-based Simon Greenstone Panatier represented the plaintiffs in those trials. King & Spalding and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe represented Johnson & Johnson in those cases.
The trials are 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 $4.7 billion, though courts have tossed at least two awards.
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, known to cause mesothelioma.
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 AllHagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
Unanswered Questions on Remote Work Complicate NJ Wage Transparency Law, Litigators Say
4 minute read'Go 12 Rounds' or Settle: Rear-End Collision Leads to $2.25M Presuit Settlement
Trending Stories
- 1Paul Weiss, Trailblazer for U.S. Firms in China, to Close Beijing Office
- 2Formal Charges Filed Against Judge Accused of Helping Defendant Escape ICE Detention
- 3Top 10 Predicted Business and Human Rights Issues for 2025
- 4$7.5M in Punitive Damages Awarded in Product Liability Case
- 5Does My Company Really Need a Generative AI Policy?
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