Preview Newsletter
Ristesund Talc Media Report 4/15/16
-
Johnson & Johnson, Imerys Talc Move for Directed Verdict at Conclusion of Plaintiffs’ Evidence in Talc-Based Powder Trial
Apr 26, 2016 | HarrisMartin
Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc America Inc. have moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence in a talcum powder ovarian cancer trial, according to the court’s online docket. -
J&J Faces Second Trial over Talc Ovarian Cancer Link
Apr 26, 2016 | Legal Reader
The afternoon of April 12 saw the Talc Litigation Group’s Allen R. Smith, Jr. tell a jury that Johnson & Johnson had known for 40 years that there was a link between talc and ovarian cancer. In fact, Mr. Smith pointed out that talc is even on a regulatory list of known or suspected carcinogens in California. However, Mr. Smith pointed out, J&J never warned women about this risk when its talc-containing products were used on or near their genitals. So, J&J faces second trial over talc ovarian cancer link.
Traditional Media
Online Media
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Apr 26, 2016 | HarrisMartin
Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc America Inc. have moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence in a talcum powder ovarian cancer trial, according to the court’s online docket.
The Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc defendants filed the motion on April 21 and 22 in the Missouri Circuit Court for St. Louis City, shortly after plaintiff Gloria Ristesund concluded her case.
Defendant Imerys Talc began presenting its case on April 21, according to the court docket. As of April 25, the defendant was still presenting evidence on its own behalf, but had not concluded.
The parties delivered opening statements on April 12.
According to an April 19 docket entry by the court, one juror was removed form the panel “for cause.”
The case is the second talc-based powder case to proceed to trial in Missouri; the first ended in a $72 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. The same jury found in favor of defendant Imerys Talc America Inc on those claims.
This time, jurors will hear Ristesund’s allegations that talc-based powder products manufactured and distributed by Johnson & Johnson defendants caused the development of ovarian cancer.
Among those entering appearances during jury selection in the instant case for the defendants were Gerard T. Noce and Beth A. Bauer of Hepler Broom LLC in St. Louis; Mary Anne Mellow of Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C., in St. Louis; and Nancy M. Erfle, Kenneth J. Ferguson, and Leslie Benitez of Gordon & Rees LLP.
Appearing for the plaintiffs during jury selection were Ted G. Meadows of Beasley Allen; Stephanie Rados and James G. Onder of Onder, Shelton, O’Leary & Peterson, LLC in St. Louis; and R. Allen Smith Jr., of The Smith Law Firm in Ridgeland, Miss.
The Johnson & Johnson defendants were represented by Scott Alan James, Gene M. Williams and Kathleen Anne Frazier of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Houston; and Mark C. Hegarty of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, Mo.
Hogans, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 1422-CC09012-01 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis City).
-
J&J Faces Second Trial over Talc Ovarian Cancer Link
Apr 26, 2016 | Legal Reader
The afternoon of April 12 saw the Talc Litigation Group’s Allen R. Smith, Jr. tell a jury that Johnson & Johnson had known for 40 years that there was a link between talc and ovarian cancer. In fact, Mr. Smith pointed out that talc is even on a regulatory list of known or suspected carcinogens in California. However, Mr. Smith pointed out, J&J never warned women about this risk when its talc-containing products were used on or near their genitals. So, J&J faces second trial over talc ovarian cancer link.
Mr. Smith said, “This case is about profit over human lives, and specifically women’s lives. The evidence will show that Johnson & Johnson, instead of warning, used corporate influence and hired former FDA people to prevent regulation at all costs, and that’s according to their internal documents.”
There are dozens more behind this one and the first trial did not go well for J&J.
The lawsuits were consolidated in the Circuit Court of St. Louis in 2014. The first case, decided in February, cost J&J $72M. That case involved the estate of Jacqueline Fox, a long-time user of J&J’s powder. The case was – to the best of everyone’s knowledge – the first time J&J had been ordered to pay up over the issue. The verdict consisted of $10M in compensatory damages and $62M in punitive damages, which were meant to send the company a message: get your act together or plan to keep on paying.
The current case involves Gloria Ristesund, age 62. She was 57 when diagnosed with endometrioid ovarian cancer in 2011. This particular cancer affects the lining of the ovaries. Mr. Smith plans to present evidence that her repeated use of J&J’s product on her genitals, along with her “independently existing endometriosis,” increased her risk of developing ovarian cancer by a shocking 214%. Ms. Ristesund’s complaint lists J&J and Imrys Talc America, Inc. (a talc producer) as defendants.Image courtesy of: www.usian.org.
Of course, J&J is slinging the same argument it’s been using for years: the link between its product and ovarian cancer is very weak and that the science behind the link is inconsistent and uncertain. In Ms. Ristesund’s case, Christy D. Jones of Butler Snow LLP, representing the defendants further stated that the weak link between talc and ovarian cancer involves a different form of ovarian cancer than the one with which Ms. Ristesund was diagnosed.
Ms. Jones also plans to argue that Ms. Ristesund has other risk factors for ovarian cancer, such as her age and endometriosis. Both, claims Ms. Jones, put Ms. Ristesund at a greater risk for ovarian cancer than does talc use.
One admits one must need a remedial anatomy and physiology class, at least if Ms. Jones’ next argument is to be believed. She stated that talc is a very common mineral used in cosmetics, certain medical procedures and food production. Therefore, she said, finding talc in a woman’s ovaries doesn’t necessarily mean it came from genital powdering. The last time one checked, the ovaries were not included in the gastro-intestinal system, nor was the skin of the face. While one is familiar with the holistic belief that everything is connected to everything else, one finds it very difficult to swallow the idea that anything a woman eats will end up in her ovaries.
Traditional Media
Online Media
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested