Preview Newsletter
J&J Talc 4/28
-
The Health Reporter Is In: April 27, 2016
Apr 27, 2016 | The News-Gazette
By Debra Pressey
Have a health-related question? Submit it here and veteran reporter Deb Pressey will chase down your answer -
Johnson & Johnson Defendants Oppose Motion for Extension on Trial Picks, to Add Plaintiffs to Petition
Apr 28, 2016 | HarrisMartin
Defendants involved in a multi-plaintiff talc-based powder exposure suit have opposed a recent motion by the plaintiffs to add more parties to the petition, saying that the proposed parties are not Missouri residents, did not purchase the allegedly harmful products in the state, and were not diagnosed with ovarian cancer in Missouri.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
-
The Health Reporter Is In: April 27, 2016
Apr 27, 2016 | The News-Gazette
By Debra Pressey
Have a health-related question? Submit it here and veteran reporter Deb Pressey will chase down your answer.
Q: I have noticed an ad in The LeRoy/Farmer City Press the last few issues that made me sit up and take notice. The top of the ad reads, “Baby Powder or other Talcum Powder linked to Ovarian Cancer”. According to Goldberg & Osborne, sufferers could be entitled to substantial compensation. They can be reached at 1-800-843-3245 orwww.1800theeagle.com. This is the first I have heard of this. I thought this would have made it in the news. Have you heard of this? Thank you for your time!!
A: The lawsuit connected with this case has been in the national news, but you may not be associating it with this ad.
This past February, a jury in St. Louis awarded $72 million ($10 million in actual damages and $62 million in punitive damages) to the family of a woman who was a longtime user of Johnson & Johnson talc products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder, and died of ovarian cancer.
This was the first jury award. More than 1,000 of these cases are pending nationally.
The Goldberg & Osborne law firm is one of many firms investigating potential claims and signing up clients.
This firms’s website contends women regularly using baby powder for perineal hygiene “are susceptible to the talc in the powder causing ovarian cancer. When applied to the genital area, talc fibers in baby/talcum powder can move through the female reproductive system and into the ovaries.”
Johnson & Johnson has denied claims of dangers about talc.“Baby Powder made from cosmetic talc is one of Johnson’s oldest products and a longtime part of baby care rituals. Johnson’s Baby Powder continues to be popular with adults as well, and in many parts of the world, it remains an essential part of makeup and skin care routines,” the company said in a statement. “Talc is also used in toothpaste, chewing gum, aspirin, and other consumer products. With over 100 years of use, few ingredients have the same demonstrated performance, mildness and safety profile as cosmetic talc.”
Read the full Johnson & Johnson statement about talc: safetyandcarecommitment.com/ingredient-info/other/talc
-
Apr 28, 2016 | HarrisMartin
Defendants involved in a multi-plaintiff talc-based powder exposure suit have opposed a recent motion by the plaintiffs to add more parties to the petition, saying that the proposed parties are not Missouri residents, did not purchase the allegedly harmful products in the state, and were not diagnosed with ovarian cancer in Missouri.
In an April 22 opposition brief filed in the Missouri Circuit Court for St. Louis City, the Johnson & Johnson defendants also expressed concern as to a request by the plaintiffs to delay their trial selections by 30 days, noting that the schedule leading up to the Feb. 21, 2017, trial date is “already tight.”
In an April 15 motion, the plaintiffs requested an extension of time and moved the court for leave to file a second amended complaint, saying that while the Case Management Order required them to make their trial selections by April 22, they needed “more time to make their trial selections due to the complex nature of the medicine and science involved in these cases.”
The plaintiffs specifically asked the court for an additional 30 days to make trial selections.
Additionally, the plaintiffs informed the court that they wished to add more plaintiffs to the petition.
In their opposition brief, however, the Johnson & Johnson defendants argued that neither of the two parties the plaintiffs wish to add to the action resides in the state of Missouri.
“The two additional Plaintiffs did not purchase or use Johnson’s Baby Powder and/or Shower-to-Shower in Missouri,” the opposition brief stated. “Notably, there are no allegations that either of the two additional Plaintiffs ‘developed’ or were diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the state of Missouri. Rather, the only common fact they share is that they each allege the purchase and use of Johnson’s Baby Powder and/or Shower-to-Shower to dust their perineum in their respective home states, and they each allege that they developed ovarian cancer in their respective home states. In sum, there are no allegations for these proposed new Plaintiffs that their claims arise from or relate to any contacts by the Johnson & Johnson defendants with the State of Missouri.”
The defendants also pointed to their recent motions to dismiss and sever and motion to transfer venue and dismiss non-Missouri plaintiffs’ claims, saying that those parties, as well as the proposed new ones, are improperly joined. For more on those motions, see the related story at www.harrismartin.com.
Additionally, the defendants opposed the plaintiffs’ proposed amendment on the ground that adding new party plaintiffs “this soon before the case selection deadline will not give Defendants adequate time to collect basic discovery materials on these extra parties before the other deadlines in the Case Management Order….”
Despite the fact that there is “little room” to move deadlines in the schedule, the defendants stated that they were willing to agree to a 10-day extension on each side.
Ingham, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 1522-CC10417 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis City).
Documents are Available Call (800) 496-4319 or Search www.harrismartin.com Motion Ref# TALC-1604-33 Opposition Ref# TALC-1604-34
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested