A California appeals court has reduced the first Roundup verdict from $289 million to $20.5 million, concluding the plaintiff was not entitled to such a high amount of future compensatory damages but that there was "substantial" evidence that the ingredients in its pesticide caused cancer.

Monday's ruling by the First District Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto, which has continued to fight substantial awards over its herbicide while agreeing to pay up to $10.9 billion to settle 75% of the estimated 125,000 Roundup claims across the country.

The appeals court retained 2018 verdict plaintiff Dewayne Lee Johnson.

"In our view, Johnson presented abundant—and certainly substantial—evidence that glyphosate, together with the other ingredients in Roundup products, caused his cancer," the ruling says.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos reduced the original verdict to $78 million but retained the jury's $39.3 million in compensatory damages, which Monday's ruling inappropriately calculated based on the 33 years that Johnson would have lived had he not been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Instead, the appeals court noted that Johnson had a life expectancy of another two years at the time of the trial. Based on the jury's calculation of $1 million per year, that would be $2 million in compensatory damages, but the appeals court, noting that Johnson was still alive at the time of the June 2 oral arguments, totaled the amount to $4 million, which, when added with other compensatory damages, totals $10.2 million.

The appeals court also upheld punitive damages, noting there was "substantial evidence was presented from which the jury could infer that Monsanto acted with a conscious disregard for public safety by discounting legitimate questions surrounding glyphosate's genotoxic effect and failing to conduct adequate studies."

Originally, the jury awarded $250 million in punitive damages, but the appeals court lowered the amount to match compensatory damages at $10.2 million.

"We agree with the trial court that although substantial evidence supported the award of punitive damages, a reduction was appropriate under the facts of this case," the ruling says. "And because we have concluded that the award of future non-economic damages must be reduced, it follows that the award of punitive damages must be reduced as well."

Plaintiffs attorney R. Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund called the decision a "major victory" for his client, because the appeals court upheld the verdict and rejected many of Monsanto's arguments.

"Nearly every argument by Monsanto was rejected, including Monsanto's vaunted preemption defense, and the verdict was upheld," he wrote in an email. "The reduction in damages is a function of a deep flaw in California tort law, not the merits of the case."

Bayer, which owns Monsanto, in an emailed statement, that it would consider its appellate options given that the appeals court upheld the verdict.

"The appeal court's decision to reduce the compensatory and punitive damages is a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the jury's verdict and damage awards are inconsistent with the evidence at trial and the law," Bayer said. "Monsanto will consider its legal options, including filing an appeal with the Supreme Court of California."

The ruling comes as Bayer reached a partial settlement last month that excluded three cases on appeal. Several prominent firms, however, objected to a $1.1 billion class action settlement that would have barred future Roundup claims, prompting its withdrawal this month.

The First District Court of Appeal also is hearing an appeal of a $2 billion Roundup verdict in 2019, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is hearing an appeal of an $80 million Roundup verdict.