California Jury Hits Johnson & Johnson With $29M Talc Verdict
The verdict comes in the first mesothelioma trial in Alameda County Superior Court.
March 13, 2019 at 08:08 PM
4 minute read
A Northern California jury late Wednesday handed up a $29 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson in a case testing a claim that using its baby powder as a base for makeup or dry shampoo caused her to get mesothelioma.
The verdict excluded punitive damages, but included an award of $22 million in noneconomic damages to the Teresa Leavitt, who received a mesothelioma diagnosis in 2017. The jury's finding comes one day after a House subcommittee heard testimony about the safety concerns surrounding cosmetic talc.
Plaintiffs lawyer Joseph Satterley of Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood Satterley represented Leavitt and her husband Dean McElroy, of San Leandro, California. Satterley's team, which included firm colleague Denyse Clancy as well as Moshe Maimon of Levy Konigsberg in New York, in 2018 secured a $117 million verdict in New Jersey.
In an email, Maimon said, “Another jury has rejected J&J's misleading claims that its talc was free of asbestos. The internal J&J documents that the jury saw, once more laid bare the shocking truth of decades of cover-up, deception and concealment by J&J.”
Johnson & Johnson immediately vowed to appeal the verdict. A spokeswoman said the New Jersey-based company was “disappointed” with the verdict “because Johnson's baby powder does not contain asbestos or cause cancer.”
“There were serious procedural and evidentiary errors in the proceeding that required us to move for mistrial on eight different points during the proceeding,” wrote Kimberly Montagnino in an emailed statement. “Plaintiffs' attorneys have fundamentally failed to show that Johnson's baby powder contains asbestos, and their own experts concede that they are not recognizing the accepted definition of asbestos and are ignoring crucial distinctions between minerals that are asbestos and minerals that are not. We respect the legal process and reiterate that jury verdicts are not medical, scientific or regulatory conclusions about a product.”
The trial was the first in Alameda County Superior Court. It was the latest of about a dozen jury verdicts involving Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products and mesothelioma. The cases are separate from the trials alleging the same products caused ovarian cancer. In addition to the New Jersey verdict, a jury in California awarded $25.75 million last year. Johnson & Johnson has won three defense verdicts, but the rest have ended in mistrials.
Another trial began last month in New Jersey.
Michael Brown, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough in Baltimore, represented Johnson & Johnson, which the jury found was 98 percent liable for the award. Brown was joined by firm colleague Scott Richman, and several lawyers from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. Last year, Brown teamed up with Bruce Bishop, of Willcox & Savage in Norfolk, Virginia, in representing Johnson & Johnson in a South Carolina case that ended in a mistrial.
The Alameda County trial, which began Jan. 7, originally included Imerys Talc America Inc., represented by Los Angeles-based Dentons partner Brad DeJardin. Imerys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the middle of the trial.
The jury assessed 2 percent liability against Cyprus Mines Corp., another talc supplier.
Jurors found that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn about the safety risks of talcum powder, which it defectively designed, and that its deception and concealment contributed to Leavitt's mesothelioma. They awarded Leavitt $2.49 million in past and future economic damages, including medical expenses and lost income, and $22 million in past and future noneconomic damages. They also awarded $5 million to her husband.
Jurors began their deliberations after closing arguments Tuesday.
The Recorder followed the trial via web coverage of the trial by Courtroom View Network.
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 AllApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
AI Startup Founder Defrauded Investors of Millions, US Prosecutors Say
3 minute readUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome': DOJ Proposes Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
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