#$417 Verdict in J&J Talc Products and Ovarian Cancer Cases

[cassandradodds]

$417 Verdict in J&J Talc Products and Ovarian Cancer Cases

Following a series of defeats in Missouri, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is dealing with an uphill battle attempting to show jurors it has not lied to consumers over the alleged connections between its talcum products and ovarian cancer.

A Los Angeles jury on August 21 awarded $417 million to a plaintiff who developed terminal ovarian cancer allegedly due to her daily application of J&J’s Baby Powder to her genital area for decades. This is an amount that far surpasses the eight and nine-figure verdicts that were awarded in similar trials in St. Louis, which culminated to $110 million.

J&J to Appeal Verdict

J&J is not giving up and says it will appeal this latest trial defeat and that scientific evidence is on its side. One St. Louis jury and a New Jersey judge have shared this position who dismissed a pair of similar lawsuits before they got to trial. The recent results, however, show J&J, with thousands of talc cases pending, that it will have to find a new tactic to generate a different result.

The visceral and emotional factor of juries that hear evidence such as injuries to children, or in talcum powder cases, injuries to a woman’s reproductive organs, are typically, a way for a jury to side with a plaintiff to get substantial punitive damages.

In the recent Los Angeles trial, jurors heard that the plaintiff had all of her reproductive organs surgically removed as a countermeasure against her ovarian cancer, leading to $347 million in punitive damages to be paid by J&J.

At the trial, jurors were shown evidence that talcum powder products made by national companies such as Wal-Mart are now sold with a warning, alerting consumers about the association between genital talc use and ovarian cancer.

Personal injury attorneys at Parker Waichman LLP are actively reviewing potential lawsuits on behalf of individuals who have been affected by talc products that may have led to serious illness such as ovarian cancer.

Many Californians Viewed as Acutely Aware of Environment Issues

Hundreds of cases are consolidated in the California mass action and thousands are pending across the country. The August 21 verdict may send a sign to plaintiffs that California, especially Los Angeles County, has a reputation as a plaintiff-friendly venue. State laws such as Proposition 65, requires labeling of potential carcinogens, and may move California residents to be more sensitive to the issues at stake in the talcum powder cases.

Proposition 65

Proposition 65 is officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. It was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986. The proposition protects the state’s “drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposures to such chemicals. Proposition 65 requires the state to maintain and update a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.”

The sheer size of California’s population, will most likely show a rise in talc cases in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers ruling in early 2017, which limited out-of-state plaintiffs’ ability to join state court mass tort actions against defendants not based in that state.

Talc Use Over the Years

For decades, talcum powder has been marketed as soft and soothing and safe enough for babies. But controversy surrounding its use continued to increase with every new report about potential cancer dangers.

Talc is a natural clay mineral made up of magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. Because it is soft, it is often used in cosmetics as it prevents caking and absorbs excess moisture. Talc residues are often found near asbestos, a known carcinogen, which means extra care has to be taken to avoid contamination during the mining process.

Several decades ago, there was a scare linking talcum powder use to bowel disease, such as ulcerative colitis and Crohns’s disease, according to the Irish Mirror.

In 1982, Harvard professor Dr. Daniel W. Cramer and his colleagues compared 215 women with ovarian cancer and 15 healthy women who acted as a control group. They found that women who used talcum powder were at nearly twice the risk of contracting ovarian cancer than non-users. Women who used talc regularly on sanitary pads and on their genitals, were shown to be three times more at risk.

Legal Information Concerning Talc-Based Products

If you or someone you know has been injured by a talc-based product, you may be eligible for compensation. Parker Waichman LLP offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact the personal injury lawyers at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).

from Parker Waichman http://www.yourlawyer.com/blog/417-verdict-jj-talc-products-ovarian-cancer-cases/

from WordPress https://parkerwaichman.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/417-verdict-in-jj-talc-products-and-ovarian-cancer-cases/

[parkerwaichmanlaw]

$417 Verdict in J&J Talc Products and Ovarian Cancer Cases

Following a series of defeats in Missouri, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is dealing with an uphill battle attempting to show jurors it has not lied to consumers over the alleged connections between its talcum products and ovarian cancer.

A Los Angeles jury on August 21 awarded $417 million to a plaintiff who developed terminal ovarian cancer allegedly due to her daily application of J&J’s Baby Powder to her genital area for decades. This is an amount that far surpasses the eight and nine-figure verdicts that were awarded in similar trials in St. Louis, which culminated to $110 million.

J&J to Appeal Verdict

J&J is not giving up and says it will appeal this latest trial defeat and that scientific evidence is on its side. One St. Louis jury and a New Jersey judge have shared this position who dismissed a pair of similar lawsuits before they got to trial. The recent results, however, show J&J, with thousands of talc cases pending, that it will have to find a new tactic to generate a different result.

The visceral and emotional factor of juries that hear evidence such as injuries to children, or in talcum powder cases, injuries to a woman’s reproductive organs, are typically, a way for a jury to side with a plaintiff to get substantial punitive damages.

In the recent Los Angeles trial, jurors heard that the plaintiff had all of her reproductive organs surgically removed as a countermeasure against her ovarian cancer, leading to $347 million in punitive damages to be paid by J&J.

At the trial, jurors were shown evidence that talcum powder products made by national companies such as Wal-Mart are now sold with a warning, alerting consumers about the association between genital talc use and ovarian cancer.

Personal injury attorneys at Parker Waichman LLP are actively reviewing potential lawsuits on behalf of individuals who have been affected by talc products that may have led to serious illness such as ovarian cancer.

Many Californians Viewed as Acutely Aware of Environment Issues

Hundreds of cases are consolidated in the California mass action and thousands are pending across the country. The August 21 verdict may send a sign to plaintiffs that California, especially Los Angeles County, has a reputation as a plaintiff-friendly venue. State laws such as Proposition 65, requires labeling of potential carcinogens, and may move California residents to be more sensitive to the issues at stake in the talcum powder cases.

Proposition 65

Proposition 65 is officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. It was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986. The proposition protects the state’s “drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposures to such chemicals. Proposition 65 requires the state to maintain and update a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.”

The sheer size of California’s population, will most likely show a rise in talc cases in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers ruling in early 2017, which limited out-of-state plaintiffs’ ability to join state court mass tort actions against defendants not based in that state.

Talc Use Over the Years

For decades, talcum powder has been marketed as soft and soothing and safe enough for babies. But controversy surrounding its use continued to increase with every new report about potential cancer dangers.

Talc is a natural clay mineral made up of magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. Because it is soft, it is often used in cosmetics as it prevents caking and absorbs excess moisture. Talc residues are often found near asbestos, a known carcinogen, which means extra care has to be taken to avoid contamination during the mining process.

Several decades ago, there was a scare linking talcum powder use to bowel disease, such as ulcerative colitis and Crohns’s disease, according to the Irish Mirror.

In 1982, Harvard professor Dr. Daniel W. Cramer and his colleagues compared 215 women with ovarian cancer and 15 healthy women who acted as a control group. They found that women who used talcum powder were at nearly twice the risk of contracting ovarian cancer than non-users. Women who used talc regularly on sanitary pads and on their genitals, were shown to be three times more at risk.

Legal Information Concerning Talc-Based Products

If you or someone you know has been injured by a talc-based product, you may be eligible for compensation. Parker Waichman LLP offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact the personal injury lawyers at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).

from Parker Waichman http://www.yourlawyer.com/blog/417-verdict-jj-talc-products-ovarian-cancer-cases/

[kansascityhappenings]

Judge refuses to overturn $4.7 billion talc powder verdict

Johnson’s baby powder remains stocked at a supermarket shelf on August 22, 2017 in Alhambra, California, where a Los Angeles jury on August 21 ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a record $417 million to a woman in hospital who sued the company. A California jury on August 21, 2017 ordered drugmaker Johnson & Johnson to pay 417 million dollars to a woman who claimed she developed terminal ovarian cancer after using the company’s talc-based products.The case was one of thousands of lawsuits brought nationwide alleging the company failed to warn consumers of the risk of cancer from talc in its products. / AFP PHOTO / FREDERIC J. BROWN (Photo credit should read FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images)

ST. LOUIS — A Missouri judge denied Johnson & Johnson’s bid to overturn a $4.7 billion jury verdict awarded to nearly two dozen women who said the company’s talcum powder contributed to their ovarian cancer.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison, in a ruling Wednesday, cited evidence of what he called “particularly reprehensible conduct” by Johnson & Johnson.

Burlison wrote that “defendants knew of the presence of asbestos in products that they knowingly targeted for sale to mothers and babies, knew of the damage their products caused, and misrepresented the safety of these products for decades.”

A jury in July awarded $4.14 billion in punitive damages and $550 million in compensatory damages to 22 women and their families after a six-week trial.

The lawsuit is among many filed on behalf of thousands of women who claim Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder contributed to their ovarian cancer. Other lawsuits have claimed that talc products caused mesothelioma. The company has consistently denied that its products can be linked to cancer.

Several of the cases on behalf of women with ovarian cancer have been filed in St. Louis. Johnson & Johnson, in a statement, noted that Burlison has denied similar motions in prior cases that were ultimately overturned.

A company spokesman said Thursday that Johnson & Johnson will appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

“We are confident this verdict will also be overturned on appeal,” the company’s statement said.

It could be years before the case is ultimately resolved.

Mark Lanier, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said Burlison’s ruling “recites the science, evidence, and the law in upholding an important judgment that delivers justice to 22 victims of an insidious cancer. We look forward to arguing this same evidence and science to the appellate courts.”

Last week, Johnson & Johnson forcefully denied a report by the Reuters news service that it knew for decades about the existence of trace amounts of asbestos in its baby powder. That report sent the company’s shares into a tailspin, suffering its worst one-day sell-off in 16 years.

The company has cited several studies that it says prove that the talc powder is safe.

Appeals courts in Missouri have overturned two previous talc verdicts against Johnson & Johnson, citing a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision placing limits on where companies can be sued for personal injuries.

But in this case, five of the women were from Missouri. Burlison’s ruling said the venue in St. Louis was proper.

from FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports https://fox4kc.com/2018/12/21/judge-refuses-to-overturn-4-7-billion-talc-powder-verdict/

from Kansas City Happenings https://kansascityhappenings.wordpress.com/2018/12/21/judge-refuses-to-overturn-4-7-billion-talc-powder-verdict/

[netunleashed-blog]

Jury orders J&J to pay $4.7 billion in Missouri asbestos cancer case

http://www.internetunleashed.co.uk/?p=4838 Jury orders J&J to pay $4.7 billion in Missouri asbestos cancer case - http://www.internetunleashed.co.uk/?p=4838 (Reuters) - A Missouri jury on Thursday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a record $4.69 billion (3.55 billion pounds) to 22 women who alleged the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contain asbestos and caused them to develop ovarian cancer. The logo of healthcare company Johnson & Johnson is seen in front of an office building in Zug, Switzerland July 20, 2016. REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann - D1BETTDJBRAAThe verdict is the largest J&J has faced to date over allegations that its talc-based products cause cancer. The company is battling some 9,000 talc cases. J&J denies both that its talc products cause cancer and that they ever contained asbestos. It says decades of studies show its talc to be safe and has successfully overturned previous talc verdicts on technical legal grounds. Thursday’s massive verdict, handed down in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, was comprised of $550 million in compensatory damages and $4.14 billion in punitive damages, according to an online broadcast of the trial by Courtroom View Network. J&J in a statement called the trial “fundamentally unfair” and said it would appeal the decision. J&J shares fell $1.31, or 1 percent, to $126.45 in after-hours trading following the punitive damages award. They had risen $1.52 during regular trading. The jury’s decision followed more than five weeks of testimony by nearly a dozen experts on both sides. The women and their families said decades-long use of Baby Powder and other cosmetic talc products caused their diseases. They allege the company knew its talc was contaminated with asbestos since at least the 1970s but failed to warn consumers about the risks. “Johnson & Johnson is deeply disappointed in the verdict, which was the product of a fundamentally unfair process,” the company said in a statement. The company said it remained confident that its products do not contain asbestos or cause cancer. “Every verdict against Johnson & Johnson in this court that has gone through the appeals process has been reversed and the multiple errors present in this trial were worse than those in the prior trials which have been reversed,” J&J added, saying that it would pursue all available appellate remedies. J&J has successfully overturned talc verdicts in the past, with appeals courts pointing to a 2017 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that limits where personal injury lawsuits can be filed. Of the 22 women in the St. Louis trial, 17 were from outside Missouri, a state generally regarded as friendly towards plaintiffs. The practice of combining plaintiffs in such jurisdictions, commonly criticized as “forum shopping” by defendants, will be challenged on appeal. Mark Lanier, the lawyer for the women, in a statement following the verdict called on J&J to pull its talc products from the market “before causing further anguish, harm, and death from a terrible disease.” “If J&J insists on continuing to sell talc, they should mark it with a serious warning,” Lanier said. The majority of the lawsuits that J&J faces involve claims that talc itself caused ovarian cancer, but a smaller number of cases allege that contaminated talc caused mesothelioma, a tissue cancer closely linked to asbestos exposure. The cases that went to trial in St. Louis effectively combine those claims by alleging asbestos-contaminated talc caused ovarian cancer. Previous talc trials have produced verdicts as large as $417 million. But that 2017 verdict by a California jury, as well as other verdicts in Missouri, was overturned on appeal, and challenges to at least another five verdicts are pending. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioned a study of various talc samples from 2009 to 2010, including of J&J's Baby Powder. No asbestos was found in any of the talc samples, the agency said bit.ly/2L5oXJP. But Lanier during the trial told jurors that the agency and other laboratories and J&J have used flawed testing methods that did not allow for the proper detection of asbestos fibres. Talc, the world’s softest rock, is a mineral closely linked to asbestos and the two substances can appear in close proximity in the earth. Plaintiffs claim the two can become intermingled in the mining process, making it impossible to remove the carcinogenic substance. J&J denies those allegations, saying rigorous testing and purification processes ensure its talc is clean. Reporting by Tina Bellon in New York; editing by Leslie Adler and Rosalba O'Brien Source link

[tortuga-aak]

Johnson & Johnson wins the reversal of a $72 million verdict over a cancer death linked to one of its popular products (JNJ)

Reuters

Oct 17 (Reuters) - Johnson & Johnson on Tuesday won the reversal of a $72 million verdict in favor of the family of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer they claimed stemmed from her use of the company's talc-based products like Johnson's Baby Powder.

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District said that given a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited where injury lawsuits could be filed, the case over Alabama resident Jacqueline Fox's death should not have been tried in St. Louis.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs had no immediate comment. J&J did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The February 2016 verdict for Fox's family was the first of four jury awards totaling $307 million in state court in St. Louis to plaintiffs who accused J&J of not adequately warning consumers about the cancer risks of its talc-based products.

J&J, which won one Missouri trial, says it faces lawsuits by 4,800 plaintiffs nationally asserting similar claims over its talc-based products. It also faces cases in California, where in August a jury awarded a woman $417 million.

The Missouri cases, which have largely been brought by out-of-state plaintiffs, have faced jurisdictional questions after the Supreme Court issued a ruling in June that limited where personal injury lawsuits could be filed.

In a decision in a case involving Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, the Supreme Court said state courts could not hear claims by non-residents who were not injured in that particular state and where the defendant company was not based in that state.

The three-judge Missouri appeals court panel cited that decision in its ruling in the case of Fox, who died four months before trial and who was named as one of 65 plaintiffs in her specific lawsuit, only two of which were Missouri residents.

"The fact that resident plaintiffs sustained similar injuries does not support specific jurisdiction as to non-resident claims," Judge Lisa Van Amburg wrote in her decision.

Lawyers for Fox's family say the Alabama resident died in 2015 at age of 62 after using J&J's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for more than 35 years. J&J sold Shower to Shower to Valeant Pharmaceuticals in 2012.

Jurors found Johnson & Johnson liable and awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $62 million in punitive damages.

The case is Estate of Jacqueline Fox et al v. Johnson & Johnson, et al, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, No. ED104580. 

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2giSdMg

[lindamcsherry]

J&J Challenges Talcum Powder Jury Verdict of $417M in Ovarian Cancer Case

After a California jury indicated that Johnson & Johnson should be ordered to pay $417 million in damages to a woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer from talcum powder, which is at least the fifth massive verdict returned nationwide, the manufacturer has filed a motion seeking to set aside the judgment and obtain a new trial.

Johnson & Johnson currently faces more than 5,000 of Johnson’s Baby Powder lawsuits and Shower-to-Shower lawsuits filed on behalf of women and families throughout the United States, each raising similar allegations that the company has withheld information about the link between ovarian cancer and talc contained in their products for years.

In August, an ovarian cancer lawsuit filed by Eva Echeverria resulted in a compensatory damage award of about $70 million, with another $347 million awarded for punitive damages, which were designed to punish Johnson & Johnson for recklessly disregarding the safety of consumers.

The verdict came following a series of multi-million dollar verdicts in similar cases that went to trial in Missouri state court, where separate juries have ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $70 million in November 2016, $55 million in May 2016 and $72 million in February 2016. Each of those cases are currently pending on appeal.

On September 15, Johnson & Johnson filed a motion for a new trial (PDF) in this most recent case pending in Los Angeles County, California. The manufacturer argues that the trial was unfair due to “irregularity”, jury misconduct, excessive damages and insufficient evidence to justify the verdict.

The motion seems to blame the jury’s findings on everyone involved in the case, except for the company’s own actions; including plaintiffs’ attorneys, the court and even the jury itself. Johnson & Johnson claims that the jury improperly factored attorney fees into the verdict, and excluded dissenting jurors from deliberations on the amount of damages to be awarded.

Johnson & Johnson previously suggested that the massive verdicts in Missouri state court were an anomaly, and has pushed for trial dates in other venues. The even larger verdict returned by the California jury may be a sign of huge problems for the company, with some analysts suggesting that more big talcum powder damage awards are likely, due to the signs that juries find Johnson & Johnson’s trial defense lacking in credibility.

With additional cases set for trial in the coming months, and several thousand cases centralized in a federal multi-district litigation (MDL) going through pretrial discovery and proceedings, the company may face increasing pressure to discuss ovarian cancer settlements for talcum powder users if they are not able to otherwise resolve the cases.

The post J&J Challenges Talcum Powder Jury Verdict of $417M in Ovarian Cancer Case appeared first on AboutLawsuits.com.

[omcik-blog]

New Post has been published on OmCik

New Post has been published on http://omcik.com/massive-california-verdict-expands-jjs-talc-battlefield/

Massive California verdict expands J&J's talc battlefield

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A massive California verdict in a lawsuit alleging Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ.N) talc-based products cause cancer has opened a new front in the litigation, upending the company’s hopes that the cases were only gaining traction in Missouri, legal experts said.

The $417 million award by California jury to a California resident suggested so-called forum-shopping, in which parties seek to file cases in whichever jurisdictions seem most favorable, may not be the main problem facing J&J as it wrestles with some 4,800 outstanding talc lawsuits.

J&J, which denies any link between talc and cancer, said in a statement it would appeal Monday’s verdict but declined further comment.

That verdict was more than the sum of all the previous talc awards, which totaled $307 million and were meted out by juries in the same state court in St. Louis, Missouri, in cases filed by out-of-state residents. A fourth of talc lawsuits nationally were brought in St. Louis after the first large verdicts there.

J&J has cast the St. Louis court as overly plaintiff-friendly and has focused on getting the cases brought by out-of-state plaintiffs dismissed.

“This has very much been about forum shopping,” Howard Erichson, a professor at Fordham School of Law, said about the talc trials. “The fact that there has been a big verdict in California is definitely interesting.”

Monday’s verdict in Los Angeles Superior Court came in a case involving a 63-year-old woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer from using Johnson’s Baby Powder for feminine hygiene since childhood.

Corporations have long fought against plaintiffs filing lawsuits in courts favorable to them, and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June delivered them a big victory, holding that state courts cannot hear claims against companies not based in the state when the alleged injury did not occur there.

J&J appeared to be an immediate beneficiary of that ruling, which a St. Louis judge cited in declaring a mistrial in a talc case involving two out-of-state women.

The company also said it believed the Supreme Court decision required the reversal of the four St. Louis verdicts.

But legal experts said the verdict in the California case, in which venue was not an issue, could shift the focus back to the evidence.

J&J shares did not react to the verdict. The company has so far not announced a litigation reserve for talc cases and analysts have said they would not be concerned until that happened.

The first talc award against J&J was handed down in St. Louis state court in February 2016, with the jury ordering J&J to pay $72 million.

The company prevailed in only one of the four talc trials that followed in the same court, with the other verdicts ranging from $55 million to $110 million.

The company has decried the St. Louis court for allowing plaintiffs to present expert testimony linking talc products with cancer that the company contends is speculative and scientifically unsound. It has appeals pending on those grounds.

J&J has contrasted the Missouri court’s stance to a New Jersey state court ruling in September 2016 that disqualified plaintiffs’ experts, leading to the dismissal of two talc cases. The plaintiffs’ appeal of that ruling is pending.

The Los Angeles judge allowed the testimony of some of the same plaintiffs’ experts as in St. Louis.

The California jury seemed to react similarly to the evidence, said Diane Lifton, a defense lawyer not involved in the talc case.

“Something clearly inflamed the jury again,” she said.

Nathan Schachtman, a product liability defense lawyer, said the California verdict showed that, venue issues aside, the evidence against J&J was compelling.

“I think it’s a tough case for the defense,” he said.

Reporting by Tina Bellon; Editing by Anthony Lin and Meredith Mazzilli

[cassandradodds]

J&J’s Bad Conduct may have Influenced LA Jury to Award $417M

New evidence has come to light that might have influenced a Los Angeles jury to side with the plaintiff in the largest talc cancer trial verdict to date. An emailed photo arrived at the start of the trial, according to one of the plaintiffs’ counsel, concerning apparent payments to science industry insiders and a key Johnson & Johnson (J&J) witness who was sanctioned and discredited for false testimony at a trial in North Carolina.

The California jurors entered a verdict in favor of a cancer-stricken plaintiff awarding $417 million in the trial over J&J talcum powder’s link to ovarian cancer. Judge Maren Nelson, Los Angeles Superior Court, presided over the trial and awarded the plaintiff $70 million in non-economic damages and $347 million in punitive damages after finding that J&J neglected to warn that its baby powder could cause ovarian cancer. The plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, but due to her illness was unable to testify at the trial.

Previous Trials

Thousands of women with similar claims have brought lawsuits, most of which are in California, New Jersey, and Missouri. Of six previous trials, five were in Missouri. One Missouri trial never went to a jury after the judge granted a mistrial on the day of the California-Plavix state court jurisdictional opinion. The decision held that “California courts lack specific jurisdiction to entertain the nonresident’s claims.”

The juries hearing testimony linking talcum powder to cancer have awarded four prior plaintiffs’ verdicts totaling over $300 million. The highest previous verdict was $110 million and all were awarded in Missouri state courts.

National law firm Parker Waichman LLP has extensive and successful experience in product liability litigation, including talcum powder’s link to ovarian cancer. Attorneys at the firm are available to answer questions for anyone seeking legal information for potential lawsuits.

Damaging Evidence Against J&J

The jury award in California was associated to three new pieces of evidence that other jurors had not heard before. The evidence showed that baby powder products made by other companies that were sold at Walmart and Dollar Tree had warnings on the bottles stating the risks of ovarian cancer. A photo of a product with a warning label was emailed just before the Los Angeles trial began. J&J was apparently unaware of this evidence.

Inappropriate Financial Relationships

In addition, in prior trials, J&J had relied on data that two individuals involved in the Cosmetic Industry Review (CIR) which had deemed talcum powder to be safe, had received payments from J&J for speeches and other engagements. This disparaging information was discovered while cross-examining the CIR’s former director, who was a defense witness, and was forced to disclose the prior unknown financial relationship of the CIR and Johnson & Johnson.

Major damage to J&J’s defense came when a senior J&J epidemiologist was revealed to have been sanctioned for perjury in another trial in North Carolina. There was a question about whether he retained notes to his expert report, which plaintiffs’ attorneys were able to reveal.

Non-Credible Witnesses

Allegedly attempts to influence witnesses and alter facts, and the issue that other companies are warning of the talcum powder and cancer link and have been warning the public for eight to 12 months, have done extreme damage to J&J’s credibility. The new evidence that emerged proved very compelling to the Los Angeles jury along with a reflection of J&J’s willingness to manipulate the trial process in their favor, allowing doubt to enter many people’s minds concerning the company’s ethics.

Johnson & Johnson continues to defend its position that their baby powder is safe and are preparing to defend that premise in future trials. The next talcum powder trial is set for October 16 in Missouri and the new evidence that was presented in the California case will possibly be presented by the plaintiffs’ representation, at that time.

J&J faces thousands of additional federal lawsuits in the recently consolidated multidistrict litigation (MDL) supervised by U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. There are also the ever-increasing number of state court cases pending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, as well as the remaining thousands of cases in the California State Court consolidation.

Legal Information Involving Talcum Powder Products

If you or someone you know has been injured by a Johnson & Johnson talcum powder product, you may have valuable legal rights. Parker Waichman LLP offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact the personal injury lawyers at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).

from Parker Waichman http://www.yourlawyer.com/blog/jjs-bad-conduct-may-influenced-la-jury-award-417m/

from WordPress https://parkerwaichman.wordpress.com/2017/08/30/jjs-bad-conduct-may-have-influenced-la-jury-to-award-417m/

[parkerwaichmanlaw]

J&J’s Bad Conduct may have Influenced LA Jury to Award $417M

New evidence has come to light that might have influenced a Los Angeles jury to side with the plaintiff in the largest talc cancer trial verdict to date. An emailed photo arrived at the start of the trial, according to one of the plaintiffs’ counsel, concerning apparent payments to science industry insiders and a key Johnson & Johnson (J&J) witness who was sanctioned and discredited for false testimony at a trial in North Carolina.

The California jurors entered a verdict in favor of a cancer-stricken plaintiff awarding $417 million in the trial over J&J talcum powder’s link to ovarian cancer. Judge Maren Nelson, Los Angeles Superior Court, presided over the trial and awarded the plaintiff $70 million in non-economic damages and $347 million in punitive damages after finding that J&J neglected to warn that its baby powder could cause ovarian cancer. The plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, but due to her illness was unable to testify at the trial.

Previous Trials

Thousands of women with similar claims have brought lawsuits, most of which are in California, New Jersey, and Missouri. Of six previous trials, five were in Missouri. One Missouri trial never went to a jury after the judge granted a mistrial on the day of the California-Plavix state court jurisdictional opinion. The decision held that “California courts lack specific jurisdiction to entertain the nonresident’s claims.”

The juries hearing testimony linking talcum powder to cancer have awarded four prior plaintiffs’ verdicts totaling over $300 million. The highest previous verdict was $110 million and all were awarded in Missouri state courts.

National law firm Parker Waichman LLP has extensive and successful experience in product liability litigation, including talcum powder’s link to ovarian cancer. Attorneys at the firm are available to answer questions for anyone seeking legal information for potential lawsuits.

Damaging Evidence Against J&J

The jury award in California was associated to three new pieces of evidence that other jurors had not heard before. The evidence showed that baby powder products made by other companies that were sold at Walmart and Dollar Tree had warnings on the bottles stating the risks of ovarian cancer. A photo of a product with a warning label was emailed just before the Los Angeles trial began. J&J was apparently unaware of this evidence.

Inappropriate Financial Relationships

In addition, in prior trials, J&J had relied on data that two individuals involved in the Cosmetic Industry Review (CIR) which had deemed talcum powder to be safe, had received payments from J&J for speeches and other engagements. This disparaging information was discovered while cross-examining the CIR’s former director, who was a defense witness, and was forced to disclose the prior unknown financial relationship of the CIR and Johnson & Johnson.

Major damage to J&J’s defense came when a senior J&J epidemiologist was revealed to have been sanctioned for perjury in another trial in North Carolina. There was a question about whether he retained notes to his expert report, which plaintiffs’ attorneys were able to reveal.

Non-Credible Witnesses

Allegedly attempts to influence witnesses and alter facts, and the issue that other companies are warning of the talcum powder and cancer link and have been warning the public for eight to 12 months, have done extreme damage to J&J’s credibility. The new evidence that emerged proved very compelling to the Los Angeles jury along with a reflection of J&J’s willingness to manipulate the trial process in their favor, allowing doubt to enter many people’s minds concerning the company’s ethics.

Johnson & Johnson continues to defend its position that their baby powder is safe and are preparing to defend that premise in future trials. The next talcum powder trial is set for October 16 in Missouri and the new evidence that was presented in the California case will possibly be presented by the plaintiffs’ representation, at that time.

J&J faces thousands of additional federal lawsuits in the recently consolidated multidistrict litigation (MDL) supervised by U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. There are also the ever-increasing number of state court cases pending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, as well as the remaining thousands of cases in the California State Court consolidation.

Legal Information Involving Talcum Powder Products

If you or someone you know has been injured by a Johnson & Johnson talcum powder product, you may have valuable legal rights. Parker Waichman LLP offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. We urge you to contact the personal injury lawyers at 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).

from Parker Waichman http://www.yourlawyer.com/blog/jjs-bad-conduct-may-influenced-la-jury-award-417m/

[mastvideos]

Jury Awards Woman $417M In Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Lawsuit

Three months after a Missouri jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a record-setting $110.5 million to a Virginia woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer linked to the company’s talcum-based products, another jury in California has dwarfed that judgment, handing down a $417 million verdict in a similar suit.

Monday’s ruling is the first in California related to allegations that Johnson & Johnson ignored a possible link between cancer and its talcum-based products.

Reuters reports that the verdict, reached after two days of deliberation, marks the largest against Johnson & Johnson.

The case involves a California woman who was diagnosed with terminal ovarian cancer in 2007. According to lawyers for the woman, she began using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum-powder products when she was 11.

The jury found that the company failed to warn the woman about the increased risk of ovarian cancer caused by talcum-based powders, Reuters reports.

A spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson confirmed the verdict to Reuters, noting that it plans to appeal the decision.

Other Cases

Johnson & Johnson has faced several lawsuits related to its talcum-based products and a possible link to cancer.

Back in May, a Missouri jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $110.5 million to a Virginia woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. According to the lawsuit, the woman claimed her illness was caused by more than 40 years of using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products, including baby powder.

The woman’s lawyers cited much of the same research used in previous cases, including a 2016 verdict that awarded $72 million to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer.

In those studies, women who used the products had a greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer than a control group that did not use the products.

Studies going back to 1971 have suggested this link exists. In fact, at least one lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson cites a 1982 study on the issue that found a 92% increased risk in ovarian cancer with women who used talc-based products around their genitals. The researcher behind that study directly advised a J&J doctor to place a warning label on their products.

Johnson & Johnson and other companies have continued to defend the use of talcum powder in feminine hygiene products; however, the condom industry halted the mineral’s use in the mid-1990s amid the growing concerns about its link to ovarian cancer risk.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist via Blogger http://ift.tt/2v8wEnl http://ift.tt/eA8V8J