Credit: senee sriyota/Shutterstock.com

In a case that is on track to be Philadelphia's first trial over talc-related cancer, Johnson & Johnson has lost its bid to keep several experts from testifying about the alleged causal connection between talcum powder and ovarian cancer—a claim that has resulted in numerous so-called nuclear verdicts for injured women in other jurisdictions.

Philadelphia Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson denied several motions J&J filed in the case, captioned Kleiner v. Rite Aid, that challenged methodologies used by six of the plaintiff's experts to form their opinions that the company's talcum powder causes cancer.

Although the consumer products maker argued the doctors used methods that were not generally accepted in the scientific community, the Philadelphia trial judge said that, instead of actually challenging the doctors' methods, J&J's motions simply contested their conclusions, which is a fact-finding issue for juries to decide.

"The substance of these motions reveal that the defendants are challenging the weight and conclusions reached by plaintiffs' experts. The defendants' scientific and medical expert communities may reach different conclusions than plaintiffs experts. As long as the basic methodology is sound, as we have here, the opinions of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses may be assessed by the triers of fact," Massiah-Jackson said, citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Rost v. Ford Motor.

Massiah-Jackson's ruling came nearly a month after a judge New Jersey overseeing the consolidated federal talc litigation against J&J also determined that five contested experts should be allowed to testify for the plaintiffs. That ruling was seen as a big win for plaintiffs attorneys, who for years have faced accusations from J&J that the experts were bringing "junk science" into the courtroom.

In Kleiner, Nancy Winkler and Todd Schoenhaus from Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg, & Jeck, as well as Ted Meadows of Beasley Allen, are representing plaintiff Ellen Kleiner.

Winkler said the ruling is a win for the plaintiff when it comes to bolstering arguments on issues including causation and failure to warn.

"What it means for the case is we're moving forward with all of our guns blazing, and all of these experts who are very well-qualified will be able to testify to the jury why this product was so dangerous," Winkler said.

Kleiner had long been set as the first ovarian cancer-related talc case set to go to trial in Philadelphia, with trial set to begin June 15. However, with the coronavirus pandemic shutting down courts across the country, the trial date for Kleiner has been set back. No date has yet been assigned for when trial will start, but Massiah-Jackson's ruling from May 22 should substantially shape the case when, and if, it finally does come before a jury.

The lawsuit has already weathered substantial motion practice, including two attempts kick the case into federal court—one stemming from arguments about the underlying talc producer filing for bankruptcy, and the other involving a challenge to Pennsylvania's business registration law, which requires companies to subject themselves to state court jurisdiction.

In recent years, Philadelphia juries have hit J&J with several significant verdicts with an $8 billion award last year in a Risperdal case setting records for the venue. And when it comes to the cancer-related talc litigation, J&J has also been hit with large damages awards, including a $4.7 billion award in Missouri a case involving 22 women, and a $750 million punitive damages award in a case involving four plaintiffs.

Earlier this month, the company also announced it was discontinuing sales of its talc-based baby powder.

Neither the J&J press office, nor Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath attorney Chanda Miller, who is representing J&J, returned a call seeking comment.