J&J Went to 'Extraordinary Lengths' to Keep Asbestos Out of Baby Powder, Defense Lawyer Says
“Johnson & Johnson's talc products were not contaminated with asbestos,” attorney Christopher Vejnoska said. “That didn't happen by accident. That didn't happen by luck."
August 21, 2018 at 03:32 PM
4 minute read
The sixth trial over whether Johnson & Johnson's baby powder caused mesothelioma opened on Monday, with a defense lawyer telling a jury that the New Jersey pharmaceutical company went to “extraordinary lengths” to ensure that its cosmetic talc did not contain the toxic mineral asbestos.
The trial comes in a case brought by California resident Carolyn Weirick, diagnosed in 2017 with mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer. Weirick, 59, claims her illness was due to her prolonged use of Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.
Orrick's Christopher Vejnoska, a partner in San Francisco, told jurors in a Los Angeles courtroom that Johnson & Johnson “constantly sampled” its talc products, according to coverage of the trial by Courtroom View Network.
“Johnson & Johnson's talc products were not contaminated with asbestos,” he said. “That didn't happen by accident. That didn't happen by luck. It happened because Johnson & Johnson went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that its products were not contaminated and to be sure that people could trust those products.”
But Weirick's lawyer, Jay Stuemke, a shareholder at Simon Greenstone & Panatier in Dallas, honed in on the trust Johnson & Johnson relied on with its customers.
“This case is about trust,” he told jurors. “This case is about a breach of that trust by Johnson & Johnson first, joined by Imerys, throughout my client's lifetime. The trust that we're talking about is a trust that's been carefully cultivated over 100 years.”
Brad DeJardin, of Dentons in Los Angeles, represented Imerys.
The trial is the sixth to allege that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder caused someone to get mesothelioma.
The first trial ended with a defense verdict on Nov. 16 in Los Angeles Superior Court.
J&J Gains Defense Verdict in First Trial Linking Talc Product to Mesothelioma
This year, another Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded $25.75 million, and a jury in Middlesex County, New Jersey, awarded $117 million, to plaintiffs in mesothelioma cases against Johnson & Johnson and Imerys. Two other cases, in Los Angeles Superior Court and Darlington County Circuit Court in South Carolina, ended in mistrials.
The trial is 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 two awards have since been tossed out. 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, which is known to cause mesothelioma.
Other suits have been brought against Colgate-Palmolive Co. and talc distributor Whittaker, Clark & Daniels Inc. over such products as Old Spice, Cashmere Bouquet and Desert Flower.
In opening statements this week, lawyers on both sides criticized each other's testing methods.
Stuemke said there were hundreds of studies that revealed asbestos in Johnson & Johnson's baby powder. He also challenged Johnson & Johnson's own scientific findings, which he said relied on a testing method that was inadequate for identifying minuscule asbestos fibers. He demonstrated that argument to jurors by trying to weigh needles on an ordinary bathroom scale.
“They're using a bathroom scale to test for needles, and then they're telling you there's no needles because it doesn't show up on the scale,” he said.
Vejnoska countered that Johnson & Johnson based its findings on thousands of actual samples taken from talc mines. He also raised doubt as to whether asbestos was the cause of Weirick's mesothelioma, noting that, for most women with the same disease, it is not.
“It's unfortunate, but sometimes, cancer just happens,” he said. “And that's not an excuse. That's just science.”
Read more:
J&J Hit With $25.75M Verdict Over Baby Powder's Link to Mesothelioma
J&J, Imerys Hit With $80M in Punitives Over Claims Linking Talc to Mesothelioma
Trial Opens Over Lawyer's Death Allegedly Caused by J&J's Baby Powder
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 AllLaw Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
6 minute readMeta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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