J&J Ordered to Pay $417 Million in Trial Over Talc Cancer Risks

A California jury on Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million to a woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer after using the company’s talc-based products like Johnson’s Baby Powder for feminine hygiene.

The Los Angeles Superior Court jury’s verdict in favor of California resident Eva Echeverria was the largest yet in lawsuits alleging J&J failed to adequately warn consumers about the cancer risks of its talc-based products.

“We are grateful for the jury’s verdict on this matter and that Eva Echeverria was able to have her day in court,” Mark Robinson, her lawyer, said in a statement.

The verdict included $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages. It was a major setback for J&J, which faces 4,800 similar claims nationally and has been hit with over $300 million in verdicts by juries in Missouri.

“We will appeal today’s verdict because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder,” J&J said.

In this April 19, 2010, file photo, Johnson's baby powder is squeezed from its container. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
In this April 19, 2010, file photo, Johnson’s baby powder is squeezed from its container. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

Echeverria’s lawsuit was the first out of hundreds of California talc cases to go to trial.

The 63-year-old claimed she developed terminal ovarian cancer after decades of using J&J’s products. Her lawyers argued J&J encouraged women to use its products despite knowing of studies linking ovarian cancer to genital talc use.

J&J’s lawyers countered that studies and federal agencies have not found that talc products are carcinogenic.

The trial follows five prior ones in Missouri state court, where many lawsuits are pending.

J&J lost four of those trials and, along with a talc supplier, has been hit with $307 million in verdicts. Before Monday, the largest verdict was for $110 million.

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

In a decision in a case involving Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, the Supreme Court said state courts cannot hear claims against companies that are not based in the state when the alleged injuries did not occur there.

The ruling prompted a St. Louis judge, at New Jersey-based J&J’s urging, to declare a mistrial in the talc case already underway.

The judge has nonetheless left the door open for the plaintiffs to argue they still have jurisdiction based on a Missouri-based bottler J&J used to package its products.

The case is Echeverria et al v. Johnson & Johnson, Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC628228.

Reuters

 
 
 
 
 
US

Government Shutdown Ends as Senate Strikes a Deal

Government Shutdown Ends as Senate Strikes a Deal
Lawmakers have reached a deal to reopen the government three days after Democrats forced a government shutdown over an ...
READ MORE >
 
US

Gorka Discusses US National Security

Gorka Discusses US National Security
WASHINGTON—Military and intelligence analyst Sebastian Gorka sat down with New Tang Dynasty TV’s Kitty Wang to discuss the ...
READ MORE >
 
US

MS-13 Wants to Send ‘Younger, More Violent’ Members to US, Official Says

MS-13 Wants to Send ‘Younger, More Violent’ Members to US, Official Says
Frustrated leaders of the notorious street gang MS-13 are feeling the pressure from the Trump administration and are ...
READ MORE >
 

The Obama Administration’s ‘Brazen Plot to Exonerate Hillary Clinton’ Starting to Leak Out, According to Former Fed Prosecutor

The Obama Administration’s ‘Brazen Plot to Exonerate Hillary Clinton’ Starting to Leak Out, According to Former Fed Prosecutor
A former federal prosecutor says the truth is starting to seep out about the Obama Administration’s “brazen plot to ...
READ MORE >
 

The Environmental Movement’s Ulterior Motives

The Environmental Movement’s Ulterior Motives
It’s hard to argue against environmental conservation. That’s why politicians have often used environmental issues to silence opposition, ...
READ MORE >