Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com.

A California jury has sided with Johnson & Johnson in the first trial over whether its iconic baby powder caused a woman to get mesothelioma.

The Nov. 16 verdict came in a trial that began on Oct. 19 in Los Angeles Superior Court. The jury found that Johnson & Johnson did not negligently manufacture or design its baby powder and Shower to Shower products or fail to warn that its talcum powder products caused mesothelioma, according to coverage of the trial by Courtroom View Network. The jury also sided with Imerys Talc America Inc., a talc supplier, in its verdict.

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 $417 million—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.

“We are pleased with today's verdict and believe that the dismissal of talc lawsuits in New Jersey and verdict reversals in Missouri and California have forced plaintiff attorneys to pivot to yet another baseless theory,” said Carol Goodrich, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman. “Johnson's baby powder has been around since 1894 and it does not contain asbestos or cause mesothelioma or ovarian cancer. We will continue to defend the safety of Johnson's baby powder in future trials.”

Lead plaintiffs attorney Chris Panatier of Dallas-based Simon Greenstone Panatier said the verdict would have little effect on future trials.

“The talc/asbestos case is extremely complicated, dealing with all manner of microscopic techniques and mineralogy etc.,” he wrote in an email. “It's our job to make all of that accessible and though I tried to do that, perhaps it wasn't enough. Also, from my conversations with a few of the jurors, it sounded like this simply was not a jury that was going to find for a plaintiff. I accept that. It happens.”

He said Johnson & Johnson was still selling “contaminated baby powder.”

“It is a matter of time before juries begin holding them to account,” he wrote. “We just missed on the first one.”

The trial is the latest to bring asbestos claims over talc-based cosmetic products. 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 2013, a New Jersey jury in Middlesex County Superior Court awarded a $1.6 million verdict against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels. The company lost again on April 7, when a Manhattan Supreme Court jury awarded $16.5 million to a plaintiff.

On Oct. 27, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded $18.07 million against the company in another case handled by Panatier. In that case, the firm represented former Los Angeles mayoral aide Philip Depoian, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015.

Simon Greenstone also secured a $13 million asbestos verdict against Colgate-Palmolive in 2015.

Colgate-Palmolive has moved to dismiss the first asbestos-related talc case in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas after a judge barred two plaintiffs' experts from testifying on some causation issues.

In the Los Angeles case, the plaintiff, Tina Herford, claimed she got mesothelioma after using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.

“She used the product for 35 years and got mesothelioma,” said Panatier at Monday's closing arguments, according to Courtroom View Network's coverage. He dotted the courtroom with actual red flags to demonstrate that Johnson & Johnson knew it had an asbestos problem but didn't do anything to change its talc products.

In court, defense lawyers argued that other exposures—such as therapeutic radiation treatments and clothing worn by her father, who was exposed to asbestos at his job—may have caused Herford's mesothelioma.

“It's a red flag about whether you're hearing the whole story from the plaintiffs,” said Johnson & Johnson attorney Morton Dubin, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in New York, in closing arguments on Monday, according to Courtroom View Network. Johnson & Johnson also was represented at trial by Orrick partner Peter Bicks; Sharla Frost, a partner at Tucker Ellis in Houston; and King & Spalding partner Alexander Calfo in Los Angeles. Imerys was represented by Alston & Bird partners Todd Benoff and Peter Masaitis, both in Los Angeles.