Preview Newsletter
talc 5/3
-
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55 million in talc-powder trial
May 2, 2016 | Reuters
By Jessica Dye
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) was ordered by a U.S. jury on Monday to pay $55 million to a woman who said that using the company’s talc-powder products for feminine hygiene caused her to develop ovarian cancer. -
J&J Faces 1,000 More Talc-Cancer Suits After Verdict Loss
May 3, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Margaret Cronin Fisk, Tim Bross and Jef Feeley
Johnson & Johnson must pay $55 million to a 62-year-old South Dakota woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the company’s talcum powder in the second such trial loss this year. -
Johnson & Johnson just lost another talcum powder cancer lawsuit
May 3, 2016 | CNN Money
By Rob McLean
Johnson & Johnson has suffered its second costly court defeat in less than three months over claims its talcum powder caused cancer. And many more cases are looming. -
St. Louis Jury Awards $55M in Johnson & Johnson Cancer Suit
May 3, 2016 | The Associated Press
A jury in St. Louis has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman who claimed the company's talcum powder caused her to develop ovarian cancer. -
J&J Hit With $55M Verdict In Ovarian Cancer Trial
May 2, 2016 | Law 360
By Brandon Lowrey
A Missouri state jury on Monday awarded $55 million to a woman suing Johnson & Johnson over allegations that she developed ovarian cancer after decades of using talc baby powder on her genitals, marking a second major defeat for the company in as many trials over the alleged talc-ovarian cancer link. -
Insurance Coverage Implications Of The J&J Talc Verdicts
May 2, 2016 | Law 360
By Stephen Hoke, Hoke LLC, and James Dorion, Marsh Risk Consulting
This year the targeting of cosmetic talc defendants began in earnest. The recent verdict against Johnson & Johnson — $72 million, including $62 million of punitive damages — wasn’t a surprise given the jurisdiction, but its sheer size clearly raises the stakes. -
J&J Hit With $55M Verdict in Another Big Loss over Talcum Powder
May 2, 2016 | The National Law Journal
By Amanda Bronstad
Johnson & Johnson lost another verdict over claims that the use of talcum powder caused a woman’s ovarian cancer after a jury in Missouri awarded $55 million on Monday. -
Johnson & Johnson Loses Another Talc-Powder Trial, Ordered To Pay $55 Million To Cancer Patient
May 2, 2016 | Lawyer Herald
Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a United States jury on Monday to pay $55 million to a woman who filed a lawsuit against the company over their talc powder. The lawsuit claims she developed ovarian cancer when she used the talc-powder products for feminine hygiene. -
Missouri Jury Awards $55 Million in Talc-Based Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit
May 2, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing
For the second time in two months, a Missouri state court jury has found for the plaintiffs in a talc-based powder exposure trial, awarding $55 million to a woman who contended that she developed endometrioid cancer as a result of using Johnson & Johnson’s product, HarrisMartin Publishing was the first to report. -
$55 million awarded in talcum powder verdict
May 2, 2016 | KSDK
A jury in St. Louis ordered Johnson and Johnson to pay a woman $55 million Monday night. -
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55M in new talc verdict
May 2, 2016 | Seeking Alpha
By Jason Aycock
After a three-week trial in Missouri, Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) has been ordered to pay $55M to a woman who said using the company's talc products caused her to contract ovarian cancer. -
J&J Ordered To Pay $55 Mln In Talcum Powder Cancer Trial
May 2, 2016 | Nasdaq
A Missouri state court jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson ( JNJ ) to pay $55 million to a 62-year-old South Dakota woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the company's talcum powder in the second such trial loss this year. -
BREAKING: Johnson & Johnson Rocked By $55M Verdict In Talcum Powder Cancer Trial
May 3, 2016 | Courtroom View Network (CVN)
By David Siegel
A Missouri state court jury on Monday slammed Johnson & Johnson with a $55 million verdict in a lawsuit filed by a woman claiming she developed ovarian cancer after using talc-powder products on her genitals for decades, and that the company knew the mineral posed a serious health risk but continued to sell it. -
Jury Orders Johnson & Johnson To Pay $55 Million Over Talc-Based Powder Linked To Ovarian Cancer
May 2, 2016 | Tech Times
By Rhodi Lee
A U.S. Jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman who claimed that using the talc powder products of the company for feminine hygiene led to the development of her ovarian cancer. -
Johnson & Johnson to Pay Another $55 Million Over Talcum Powder Ovarian Diagnosis
May 2, 2016 | Inquisitr
By Janice Malcolm
On Monday, a U.S. jury in a Missouri court ordered the Johnson & Johnson company to pay $55 million to a 62-year-old South Dakota woman who stated that she got ovarian cancer from using J&J’s talcum powder. It is the second time this year that the company has lost a trial about their talc powder causing cancer. -
Another Big Defeat for Johnson & Johnson in Talc-Ovarian Cancer Case
May 2, 2016 | Fair Warning Reports
By Myron Levin
Johnson & Johnson suffered a second straight legal defeat in defense of its signature talc products on Monday when it was ordered to pay $55 million in damages to a woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the use of Johnson’s Baby Powder for feminine hygiene. -
New Cases Continue to Blame Johnson & Johnson for Cancer Deaths
May 2, 2016 | Law Newz
By James A. Morris Jr.
A Los Angeles lawsuit has joined the surging number of cases insisting Johnson & Johnson failed to warn American women that long-term use of talcum powder can lead to ovarian cancer. -
Third Verdict for Toxic Talc J&J Hit with $55 Million Verdict
May 2, 2016 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
By Jane Akre
This is the second verdict this year against Johnson & Johnson over its talcum powder. On Monday, a jury in Missouri awarded a woman who claims the use of talc by the company caused ovarian cancer $55 million. -
Johnson & Johnson loses second ovarian cancer case, must pay $55mn
May 3, 2016 | RT
Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has lost its second legal battle in a row over its talcum powder, which has been alleged to cause cancer. The company must now pay $55 million to a woman who says she got ovarian cancer after using the product. -
Another legal loss for Johnson & Johnson as Missouri court orders talc powder maker to pay $55 million to ovarian cancer patient
May 3, 2016 | International Business Times
By Vittorio Hernandez
It was second straight court loss for multinational Johnson & Johnson when a Missouri court ordered the talc powder maker on Monday to pay $55 million (AUD$71.6 million) to another ovarian cancer patient. It was quick decision as the trial on the lawsuit filed by Gloria Ristesund of South Dakota started on April 11.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
EMEA Coverage
APAC Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55 million in talc-powder trial
May 2, 2016 | Reuters
By Jessica Dye
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) was ordered by a U.S. jury on Monday to pay $55 million to a woman who said that using the company’s talc-powder products for feminine hygiene caused her to develop ovarian cancer.
The verdict, which J&J plans to appeal, was the second straight trial loss for the company, which is facing about 1,200 lawsuits accusing it of not adequately warning consumers about its talc-based products' cancer risks.
Following a three-week trial in Missouri state court, jurors deliberated for about a day before returning a verdict for Gloria Ristesund. She was awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages.
J&J spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said the verdict contradicted 30 years of research supporting the safety of cosmetic talc. The company intends to appeal and will keep defending its products' safety, she said.
Ristesund said she used J&J’s talc-based powder products – which include the well-known Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Powder – on her genitals for decades. According to her lawyers, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and had to undergo a hysterectomy and related surgeries. Her cancer is now in remission.
Jere Beasley, whose firm represents Ristesund, said his client was gratified with the verdict. The jury's decision should "end the litigation" and compel J&J to settle the remaining cases, he said.
J&J shares were down 18 cents in after-hours trading to $112.57.
The verdict followed a $72 million jury award from the same court in February to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer after years of using talc powder for feminine hygiene.
That verdict, which J&J is appealing, sparked renewed interest in talc-powder lawsuits among plaintiffs' lawyers, as well as consumers familiar with J&J's powder products. But scientists have told Reuters the evidence of a real danger is inconclusive.
Plaintiffs in talc litigation, which is concentrated in Missouri and New Jersey state courts, have accused J&J of failing for years to warn that talc was linked to an increased risk for ovarian cancer. J&J has said it acted properly in developing and marketing the products.
The only other case to be tried involving talc powder and ovarian cancer resulted in a mixed verdict in South Dakota federal court in 2013. While those jurors found J&J was negligent, they awarded no damages to the plaintiff, whose cancer was in remission at the time of the trial.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-talc-verdict-idUSKCN0XT20L
-
J&J Faces 1,000 More Talc-Cancer Suits After Verdict Loss
May 3, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Margaret Cronin Fisk, Tim Bross and Jef Feeley
Johnson & Johnson must pay $55 million to a 62-year-old South Dakota woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the company’s talcum powder in the second such trial loss this year.
J&J is accused in more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts of ignoring studies linking its Shower-to-Shower product and Johnson’s Baby Powder to ovarian cancer. Women contend the company knew the risk and failed to warn customers. In February, J&J lost a $72 million verdict in the same St. Louis courthouse to the family of a woman who died of the disease.
“The more talc verdicts that come down against them adds to the public’s growing distrust of their baby powder, which is one of their iconic products,” said Carl Tobias, who teaches product-liability law at the University of Richmond in Virginia. “There are both economic and reputational issues that may motivate them to start thinking about a global settlement of these cases.”
J&J should consider setting up a settlement program to dispose of the talc cases, said Tobias, who isn’t involved in the case.
State court jurors Monday awarded $5 million in compensation and $50 million in punitive damages to Gloria Ristesund, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 after using J&J’s talc-based feminine hygiene products for almost 40 years. Ristesund’s cancer, after she underwent a hysterectomy, is in remission.
“Science has been simple and consistent over the last 40 years: There’s an increased risk of ovarian cancer from genital use of talc,’’ Allen Smith, Ristesund’s lawyer, told jurors Friday. Ristesund used talc for four decades unaware there were any health concerns, he said.Talc’s Safety
J&J, the world’s largest maker of health-care products, denied any link between talc and ovarian cancer or any need to warn women. The company will appeal the verdict, Carol Goodrich, a J&J spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the word that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,’’ Goodrich said. “Johnson & Johnson has always taken questions about the safety of our products extremely seriously.’’
The jury cleared J&J’s supplier and co-defendant, Imerys Talc America Inc., of any liability.
The outcome was a narrow victory for the plaintiff, with jurors voting 9-3 for Ristesund, the minimum required. The panel initially voted 7-5 for Ristesund, said juror Devon Small, 26, of St. Louis.
Jurors struggled to agree on whether talc was a contributing factor in ovarian cancer, said jury forewoman Teri Brickey, 45, of St. Louis. “After we agreed on that, everything was easy,” she said. “We felt like they knew for decades that they should have put a warning on this product.”Third Trial
Ristesund’s lawsuit is the third to go to before a jury, preceded by the trial in the suit brought by the family of Jackie Fox, who died at 62. An earlier trial in federal court in South Dakota in 2013 ended with a jury finding that J&J was negligent while deciding not to award damages. The company faces another talc trial in the St. Louis court in September.
Thousands of women or their family members contacted plaintiffs’ lawyers after the Fox verdict, attorney Jere Beasley said in March. His firm, one of several representing the Fox family and Ristesund, is reviewing more than 5,000 potential claims, he said in an interview.
Ristesund’s case was a “defense pick” after the plaintiffs selected the first case to go to trial, Beasley said in an interview Monday. “If they can’t win that one, they can’t win one. They’re going to have to come to the table and start settling cases.”Targeting Women
J&J documents showed the company was aware of health concerns since the mid-1970s, Smith told jurors Friday in closing arguments. A 1992 document suggested targeting women who were high users of talcum powder to boost sales, he said.
Ristesund incurred $174,000 in medical bills, plus pain and suffering, Smith told jurors. Talc was found in her ovarian tissue after the hysterectomy, he said.
Christy Jones, a J&J attorney, told jurors that Ristesund had several risk factors for ovarian cancer, That included a family history of cancer, having endometriosis and the fact she had no children, Jones said. “Nobody knows what causes ovarian cancer,” she said.
Three jurors sided with J&J. “I just thought there was a lack of evidence,” juror Kayla McGuire, 32, said in an interview after the verdict. Other jurors had “latched onto a few emotional statements,” she said.
The case is Hogans v. Johnson & Johnson, 1422-CC09012-01, Circuit Court, St. Louis City, Missouri.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-02/j-j-ordered-to-pay-55-million-over-cancer-linked-to-talc
-
Johnson & Johnson just lost another talcum powder cancer lawsuit
May 3, 2016 | CNN Money
By Rob McLean
Johnson & Johnson has suffered its second costly court defeat in less than three months over claims its talcum powder caused cancer. And many more cases are looming.A jury in St. Louis awarded $55 million in damages to Gloria Ristesund, who used Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder for more than 35 years before being diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011.
Ristesund's lawyers argued that Johnson & Johnson knew of possible health risks associated with talc, but failed to warn consumers.
"Internal documents from J & J show it knew of studies connecting talc use and ovarian cancer but, to this day, it continues to market it as safe -- neglecting any warning," The Onder Law Firm, which represented Ristesund, said in a statement.
Johnson & Johnson said it plans to appeal the verdict.
"Multiple scientific and regulatory reviews have determined that talc is safe for use in cosmetic products and the labeling on Johnson's Baby Powder is appropriate," Carol Goodrich, a spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson Consumer, said in a statement.
In February, a jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million to the family of Jackie Fox. Fox died of ovarian cancer in 2015.
The trials are part of a legal action that includes nearly 50 plaintiffs, suggesting Johnson & Johnson could face additional penalties.
Talc is a naturally occurring mineral composed of magnesium, silicon, oxygen and hydrogen. It's used to absorb moisture in many kinds of cosmetic products, from baby powder to make up.
Related: What you need to know about talc safety
The American Cancer Society says it is not clear if products containing talcum powder increase cancer risk. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, classifies talc as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
Because products containing talcum powder are classified as cosmetics, they do not have to undergo review by the Food and Drug Administration. However, they must be properly labeled and "they must be safe for use by consumers under labeled or customary conditions of use," the FDA states.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/03/news/companies/johnson-and-johnson-cancer-talcum-powder/
-
St. Louis Jury Awards $55M in Johnson & Johnson Cancer Suit
May 3, 2016 | The Associated Press
A jury in St. Louis has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $55 million to a South Dakotawoman who claimed the company's talcum powder caused her to develop ovarian cancer.
Court records show the jury returned the verdict in favor of plaintiff Gloria Ristesund on Monday. It comes after a St. Louis jury in February awarded $72 million to the family of anAlabama woman who sued Johnson & Johnson over ovarian cancer she said was caused by using its baby powder and other products containing talcum.
A Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman says the New Jersey-based company is beginning the process to appeal the Monday ruling.
Spokeswoman Carol Goodrich says the decision goes against decades of research that supports the safety of cosmetic talc.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/st-louis-jury-awards-55m-johnson-johnson-cancer-38833206
-
J&J Hit With $55M Verdict In Ovarian Cancer Trial
May 2, 2016 | Law 360
By Brandon Lowrey
A Missouri state jury on Monday awarded $55 million to a woman suing Johnson & Johnson over allegations that she developed ovarian cancer after decades of using talc baby powder on her genitals, marking a second major defeat for the company in as many trials over the alleged talc-ovarian cancer link.
The verdict comes on the heels of a $72 million verdict in a similar case awarded in February. Scores of additional lawsuits remain pending in Missouri alleging a link between the product and ovarian cancer.
Monday's verdict in favor of plaintiff Gloria Ristesund came after four weeks of trial and about a day of deliberations. Jurors found J&J not liable on conspiracy claims, but liable on other product liability claims leveled against them in the suit.
Talc producer Imrys Talc America Inc. escaped liability in the case. J&J and its Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. subsidiary were each held 50 percent responsibe for Ristesund's damages.
The jury awarded Ristesund $5 million in compensatory damages and hit J&J with a $35 million punitive verdict. Its subsidiary was hit with $15 million in punitives.
During closing arguments Friday, the plaintiff's attorney Allen R. Smith Jr. of the Talc Litigation Group told jurors that Johnson & Johnson had discussed the product's ovarian cancer risks for decades but failed to warn consumers. He showed jurors a 1986 Johnson & Johnson internal document noting "retrospective studies have implicated talc use in the vaginal area with the incidence of ovarian cancer," saying it was one of many documents showing the company internally recognized there was a risk while denying it publicly.
"They can say whatever they want to with their fancy experts when they come up here that testify in litigation all the time," he said. "This is what they said behind closed doors, when they're in the house and they don't think anybody's listening. A whole different song and dance."
Smith declined to suggest to jurors an award amount for his client's pain and suffering. He only suggested that punitive damages ought to change the companies' behavior and "make them pay" for their conduct.
The trial is the second of dozens brought by women whose claims were consolidated in a complaint filed against J&J in the Circuit Court of St. Louis in 2014. In the first case, a jury in February slammed Johnson & Johnson with a $72 million verdict.
In the present suit, Ristesund, 62, said she was diagnosed with endometrioid ovarian cancer, affecting the lining of her ovaries, in 2011. She was 57 at the time.
She alleged that her use of talc on her genitals, in addition to her independently existing endometriosis, raised her ovarian cancer risk by 214 percent. Her suit names as defendants J&J and Imrys.
Johnson & Johnson attorney Christy D. Jones of Butler Snow LLP, meanwhile, argued that the evidence shows that talc is safe, and the studies suggesting otherwise are inconclusive or flawed. She told jurors that Ristesund's endometriosis was the likely cause of her cancer.
"The fact is, endometriosis is a recognized, significant risk factor for ovarian cancer," she said. "It's highly unlikely [that] Mrs. Ristesund would have had ovarian cancer if she had not had endometriosis. In fact, there's no proof, none, that she wouldn't have had ovarian cancer had she not used talc. None."
The trial comes after a jury in February awarded $72 million to the estate of Jacqueline Fox, who died of ovarian cancer after using the body powder for decades. It was reportedly the first time the company has been ordered to pay damages over the link between cancer and the talc used in its products.
The Fox verdict included $10 million in compensatory damages and $62 million in punitive damages.
Following Monday's verdict in the Ristesund case, an attorney for the plaintiff celebrated the win in a prepared statement.
"This second jury verdict affirms that Johnson & Johnson knew that its talcum powder products posed a risk to women's health, but they did nothing to warn the public," said Ted Meadows of Beasley Allen. "There are safer alternatives made with cornstarch, which Johnson & Johnson also sells. There really was no reason for them to leave this product on the market. At the very least, they could have added a warning label to alert women to the risk of ovarian cancer. This verdict sends a message that the public is tired of corporations placing their profits over our health and trust."
J&J, meanwhile, released a statement vowing to appeal the verdict and saying the jury went against decades of medical studies that support talc's safety.
"We understand that women and families affected by ovarian cancer are searching for answers, and we deeply sympathize with all who have been affected by this devastating disease with no known cause," J&J Consumer spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a written statement. "Multiple scientific and regulatory reviews have determined that talc is safe for use in cosmetic products and the labeling on Johnson’s Baby Powder is appropriate."
J&J attorney Gene Williams added that the jury acted on evidence that "distorted" science.
"The scientific reality is that cosmetic talc does not cause cancer,” he said.
For more coverage of this trial, visit Courtroom View Network.
Ristesund is represented by Allen R. Smith Jr. of the Talc Litigation Group and Ted G. Meadows of Beasley Allen Law F
Johnson & Johnson is represented by Christy D. Jones of Butler Snow LLP.
Imrys Talc America Inc. is represented by Nancy M. Erfle of Gordon & Rees LLP.
The case is Gloria Ristesund v. Johnson & Johnson, case number 1422-CC09012-01, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri.http://www.law360.com/articles/791737/j-j-hit-with-55m-verdict-in-ovarian-cancer-trial
-
Insurance Coverage Implications Of The J&J Talc Verdicts
May 2, 2016 | Law 360
By Stephen Hoke, Hoke LLC, and James Dorion, Marsh Risk Consulting
This year the targeting of cosmetic talc defendants began in earnest. The recent verdict against Johnson & Johnson — $72 million, including $62 million of punitive damages — wasn’t a surprise given the jurisdiction, but its sheer size clearly raises the stakes. That outcome and Monday's $55 million verdict against J&J in Missouri suggest there will be more cosmetic talc lawsuits and they will cost more to resolve, raising the issue of how insurers will respond.
Why Now?
Annual mesothelioma case filings are relatively flat, but the number of diagnoses is believed to be falling as the plaintiffs bar’s advertising captures an ever-increasing percentage of potential plaintiffs. In the wake of the J&J verdict, specific “talc exposure” television advertisements are now appearing.
Two developments are driving the increased attention on companies that mined or incorporated cosmetic talc into their products. First, there’s been confusion as to why so many women — frequently young — are being diagnosed with mesothelioma, despite having no obvious asbestos exposures. The defense bar has long speculated there is idiopathic mesothelioma. The plaintiffs bar alleges some cosmetic talc contains asbestos. Last year a California jury awarded $13 million to a woman who contracted mesothelioma from exposure to allegedly asbestos-containing talcum powder sold by Colgate-Palmolive. Second, many recent cosmetic talc claims, like the J&J case, allege talc causes ovarian cancer. There is no reference to asbestos contamination in these cases, which opens up an entire new class of potential plaintiffs. The National Institute of Health estimates there are 22,280 new cases of ovarian cancer diagnosed annually in the U.S. and 14,240 women die of the disease every year. By comparison, the American Cancer Society estimates that there are only 3,000 new mesothelioma diagnoses a year. If the plaintiffs bar is successful in tying cosmetic talc to ovarian cancer, as they were in the J&J case, they have increased their potential plaintiff pool by over 700 percent.
How Will Insurance Respond?
Cosmetic talc lawsuits allege harm over time, which raises many issues common to asbestos insurance coverage cases. Like most asbestos claims, talc claims are predominantly product liability and implicate a defendant’s historical liability coverage. In the insurance coverage context, however, the differences between talc and asbestos should be considered.
Asbestos Exclusions: Lawsuits against industrial talc defendants typically allege the talc was contaminated with asbestos. Thus, the asbestos exclusion found in most general liability policies issued since the mid-to-late 1980s typically is asserted by the insurers in such cases. Cases like the Colgate-Palmolive California verdict that allege asbestos contamination also potentially implicate the asbestos exclusion. Claims like the J&J case, however, do not allege an asbestos connection, so they are presumptively not subject to the exclusion. Consequently, asbestos claims typically implicate policies issued before the mid-1980s, while a claim like the suit against J&J may also implicate policies issued more recently.
Interestingly, in certain jurisdictions that forcibly spread the risk “pro rata” to all potentially triggered policies, a policyholder may actually prefer the application of the asbestos exclusion if their later coverage had high deductibles, SIR’s, fronting features, onerous claims-made provisions or insolvencies. This quirk is because in asbestos coverage cases many pro rata jurisdictions do not spread the risk to periods in which coverage was effectively “unavailable” to policyholders due to widespread exclusions used by insurers. Thus, a policyholder might actually prefer a hard cutoff that insulates it from these less desirable policy years even though it reduces the overall limits available.
Fortuity: The complaint in the J&J case alleges J&J knew about an association with ovarian cancer as early as 1971. It asserts “nearly all” of 23 epidemiologic studies on cosmetic talc reported an associated risk with ovarian cancer. It describes, at length, alleged instances in which J&J “knowingly released false information” about the safety of talc in coordination with the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association and otherwise concealed and failed to warn of cosmetic talc’s dangers. It has been reported post-trial interviews with jurors revealed these allegations were the motivation for the large punitive damages award.
Such allegations will cause insurers to raise various “fortuity,” “known loss” and “expected and intended” defenses to coverage. They rest on the concept a loss that is caused intentionally, or which the policyholder had sufficient foreknowledge to prevent, is not insurable. While fortuity defenses are daunting, they have had virtually no impact in asbestos coverage cases. Also, fact intensive fortuity defenses can place carriers in a conflict of interest with the policyholder. Thus, a policyholder may be able to demand the insurers permit it to hire defense counsel of its choice, and the carriers would still be responsible to pay for the defense.
Punitive Damages: From an insurance recovery standpoint, the biggest insurance issue raised by the J&J verdict is the $62 million punitive damage award. A majority of states do not allow punitive damages to be insured. However, even those states often have exceptions for vicarious liability and other distinctions that might offer a policyholder the possibility of coverage. Which state’s law will apply to the punitive damages issue is therefore of critical importance. Factors such as where the plaintiff lives, where the underlying case was brought and where the defendant was headquartered are all relevant factors that could be determinative.
Who Pays What Share?
The questions of what policies are triggered and how to allocate responsibility among them have been the focus of asbestos coverage cases for the last three decades. While these precedents provide guidance for talc cases — especially those cases involving allegations of asbestos contamination — subtle differences between cosmetic talc and asbestos will require fresh consideration. Insurers will generally look to forcibly spread the risk to as many other insurers as it can, or to the policyholder itself.
Trigger of Coverage: “Trigger of coverage” determines which policies are potentially responsive. Under an “occurrence” based policy, any policy on the risk when a bodily injury takes place is potentially triggered. For asbestos, most states apply a form of “continuous trigger” that implicates any policy on the risk from the date of first exposure until manifestation.
The rationale for the “continuous trigger” approach is grounded in asbestos being a progressive disease. Insurers have recently been arguing this view has been undermined by changes in medical science. They are attempting to move the trigger date closer to the manifestation of the plaintiff’s disease so coverage is barred by the asbestos exclusions typically found in later policies. Most of these efforts have failed, but it is still being aggressively litigated by some insurers.
What these battles portend for cosmetic talc defendants is unclear. The science of cosmetic talc and asbestos is likely different. After losing many asbestos coverage battles, insurers understand the critical importance “trigger” methodology has on their potential liability. They will aggressively seek to limit the available coverage to more recent years, where coverage is likely less robust.
Loss Allocation: Most talc claims involve multiple triggered policies. The allocation issue is whether a policyholder can select one of the triggered policies to fully defend and indemnify it in a given claim based on the language found in many historical liability policies that makes an insurer liable for “all sums” a policyholder may have to pay. Under this approach a policyholder may target those policies with the most favorable terms, avoiding policy documentation gaps, insurer insolvencies and policies with large deductibles or SIR’s.
There is a split in how states approach loss allocation, with some utilizing a “pro rata” approach which spreads costs across all triggered policies. Policy periods in which the policyholder is uninsured due to the unavailability of insurance for the risk are generally not included in the allocation. In a pro rata jurisdiction, a policyholder may be forced to satisfy all deductibles and loss retentions found in each respective policy period and may be required to step into the shoes of the insurer for any coverage gaps. If “claims-made” coverage is implicated, the policyholder could be held responsible for a period after the extended reporting period expires.
Lost Policies: Cosmetic talc plaintiffs frequently allege exposure to talc over many decades, sometimes starting as far back as the 1940s. This creates a burden of proof problem for defendants because many corporations did not preserve, or cannot readily locate old policies, and it is their burden of proof to establish the existence of responsive policies. A policyholder may need to employ an insurance archeologist to assist in locating missing policies or reconstructing them through secondary evidence.
What State’s Law Applies?
In extreme instances, differences in applicable law can mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy for a defendant. If you assume courts prefer to apply their own substantive law, this puts a premium on being the first to file a coverage action in a favorable jurisdiction because “first-filing” can be given great weight in determining which state’s law applies. The likelihood of a jurisdictional choice of law battle increases with the amount of money at stake, when a company had its headquarters in more than one state or when a company has many different locations.
Conclusion: While asbestos decisions will heavily influence the outcome of future talc insurance coverage disputes, talc claims present novel issues. To evaluate insurance assets properly, a talc defendant needs to consider the following questions:
Can the existence, terms and conditions of the relevant insurance policies be established?Is there a plausible basis for more than one state’s law to apply to the interpretation of its policies?Is one of the possible venues a “pro rata” rather than an “all sums” jurisdiction?Is there a material difference in how the possible competing venues treat the insurability of punitive damages?Has any insurer issued a reservation of rights letter? Does it raise a potential conflict of interest?Does the historical coverage have large deductibles or retentions? Is it “retrospectively” rated or “fronted” coverage? Written on a “claims-made” basis?
The more “yes” answers to the above questions, the more likely there will be a coverage dispute. Insurers have extensive experience litigating asbestos coverage disputes. Cosmetic talc defendants need to understand their rights and duties to maximize their insurance recovery.
—By Stephen Hoke, Hoke LLC, and James Dorion, Marsh Risk Consulting
Stephen Hoke is a partner in Hoke LLC’s Chicago office.
James Dorion is the managing director/global practice leader of Marsh Risk Consulting’s complex liability and risk services. He is based in Chicago.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.http://www.law360.com/articles/791064/insurance-coverage-implications-of-the-j-j-talc-verdicts
-
J&J Hit With $55M Verdict in Another Big Loss over Talcum Powder
May 2, 2016 | The National Law Journal
By Amanda Bronstad
Johnson & Johnson lost another verdict over claims that the use of talcum powder caused a woman’s ovarian cancer after a jury in Missouri awarded $55 million on Monday.
The verdict comes after another Missouri jury on Feb. 22 awarded $75 million in the first award against Johnson & Johnson over talcum powder’s links to ovarian cancer.
Monday’s award, by a jury in St. Louis state court, included $50 million in punitive damages to Gloria Ristesund, according to a spokeswoman from Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles of Montgomery, Alabama, which represented the women in both cases.
A Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman wrote in an email that the company planned to appeal the verdict.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,” wrote spokeswoman Carol Goodrich. “We understand that women and families affected by ovarian cancer are searching for answers, and we deeply sympathize with all who have been affected by this devastating disease with no known cause.”
Both trials came out of a single case that involves more than 60 plaintiffs. The first award, granted to the family of Jacqueline Fox, included $62 million in punitive damages.
http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202756570450/JampJ-Hit-With-55M-Verdict-in-Another-Big-Loss-over-Talcum-Powder#ixzz47ZXCpUUO
-
Johnson & Johnson Loses Another Talc-Powder Trial, Ordered To Pay $55 Million To Cancer Patient
May 2, 2016 | Lawyer Herald
Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a United States jury on Monday to pay $55 million to a woman who filed a lawsuit against the company over their talc powder. The lawsuit claims she developed ovarian cancer when she used the talc-powder products for feminine hygiene.
According to Reuters, the verdict is the second straight loss for the company, which is facing 1,200 more lawsuits. Most of the lawsuits accuse the company of not warning consumers about their talc-based products' cancer risks. The verdict is said to be appealed by Johnson & Johnson.
The verdict was given following a three-week trial in the Missouri state court. Jurors deliberated for a day before returning with a verdict for the case of Gloria Ristesund. She was then awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages.
Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement that the verdict contradicted the company's 30 years of research that supported the safety of their cosmetic talc. The company will be arguing in their appeal that their products are safe, The Guardian reported.
Ristesund said that she used the talc-based powder products of Johnson & Johnson on her genitals for decades. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and had to undergo a hysterectomy and related surgeries. Her cancer is now lessening.
Jere Beasley, who represents Ristesund, said in a statement that his client was satisfied with the verdict and that the jury's decision should end the litigation as well as let Johnson & Johnson compel with the settlement, Channel News Asia reported.
The latest verdict comes after a jury awarded $72 million to another case, which was from the same court. This was back in February and it concerns the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer after years of using talc powder also for feminine hygiene.
http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles/44644/20160503/johnson-loses-another-talc-powder-trial-ordered-pay-55-million.htm#JbYbVPyyCKwrKcRr.99
-
Missouri Jury Awards $55 Million in Talc-Based Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit
May 2, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing
For the second time in two months, a Missouri state court jury has found for the plaintiffs in a talc-based powder exposure trial, awarding $55 million to a woman who contended that she developed endometrioid cancer as a result of using Johnson & Johnson’s product, HarrisMartin Publishing is reporting.
The Missouri Circuit Court for St. Louis City reached the verdict just moments ago, after having deliberated for approximately one hour on Friday, April 29, and all day today.
Sources told HarrisMartin that the $55 million award included $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages. Jurors entered punitive damage awards in the amount of $35 million against Johnson & Johnson and $15 million against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies.
The jury reached a defense verdict in favor of Imerys Talc America, sources confirmed to HarrisMartin.
Plaintiff Gloria Ristesund, 62, contended during trial that she was diagnosed with endometrioid ovarian cancer in 2011. Opening statements were delivered in the case on April 12; the defendants rested on April 28, and the jury heard closing arguments on April 29.
Judge Rex Burlison presided over the trial.
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. For more on this verdict, see the related story in HarrisMartin's Talcum Powder Litigation Report.
Sources told HarrisMartin that while the first case was selected by the plaintiffs for trial in the coordinated docket, Ristesund’s lawsuit was chosen by the defendants.
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.
Hogans, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 1422-CC09012-01 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis City).
http://harrismartin.com/article/20759/breaking-missouri-jury-awards-55-million-in-talc-based-powder-ovarian-cancer-lawsuit/
-
$55 million awarded in talcum powder verdict
May 2, 2016 | KSDK
A jury in St. Louis ordered Johnson and Johnson to pay a woman $55 million Monday night.
The woman claimed the company's talcum powder caused her to develop ovarian cancer. It's the second straight loss for Johnson and Johnson.
In February, a St. Louis jury awarded Jaqcqueline Fox's family $72 million. Her lawyer claimed the company knew its products could cause cancer, and didn't warn customers.
Johnson and Johnson plans to appeal both verdicts.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/55-million-awarded-in-talcum-powder-verdict/165503432
-
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55M in new talc verdict
May 2, 2016 | Seeking Alpha
By Jason Aycock
After a three-week trial in Missouri, Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) has beenordered to pay $55M to a woman who said using the company's talc products caused her to contract ovarian cancer.
The same court had ruled against Johnson & Johnson in a similar case in February, ordering it to pay $72M at that time ($62M of that in punitive damages).
J&J faces about 1,200 lawsuits charging it with not adequately warning about cancer risks in using the products, which include Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Powder, for feminine hygiene.
The company is appealing the earlier verdict. Talc litigation is concentrated in Missouri and New Jersey state courts.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3178392-johnson-and-johnson-ordered-pay-55m-new-talc-verdict
-
J&J Ordered To Pay $55 Mln In Talcum Powder Cancer Trial
May 2, 2016 | Nasdaq
A Missouri state court jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson ( JNJ
) to pay $55 million to a 62-year-old South Dakota woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the company's talcum powder in the second such trial loss this year.
The company is accused in more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts of ignoring studies linking its Shower-to-Shower product and Johnson's Baby Powder to ovarian cancer. Women contend the company knew the risk and failed to warn customers.
In February, the jury in St. Louis, Missouri ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million in damages to the family of a woman, who claim that her death caused by ovarian cancer was due to the longtime use of baby powder and other Johnson & Johnson products.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/jj-ordered-to-pay-55-mln-in-talcum-powder-cancer-trial-20160502-01540
-
BREAKING: Johnson & Johnson Rocked By $55M Verdict In Talcum Powder Cancer Trial
May 3, 2016 | Courtroom View Network (CVN)
By David Siegel
A Missouri state court jury on Monday slammed Johnson & Johnson with a $55 million verdict in a lawsuit filed by a woman claiming she developed ovarian cancer after using talc-powder products on her genitals for decades, and that the company knew the mineral posed a serious health risk but continued to sell it.
Plaintiff Gloria Ristesund’s case marks the second time in a row a jury blasted J&J in a talc-related case, with nearly 1,200 similar lawsuits pending. The verdict was reached following a three-week trial and consists of $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages. In February another St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to a woman who also claimed prolonged talc-powder use caused her to develop ovarian cancer.
J&J said it will appeal the jury’s verdict. The full trial was recorded and webcast gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network.
Imerys Talc America, J&J’s sole talc provider, was also a defendant in the trial and was cleared of all liability.
Attorneys for Ristesund, 62, argued that J&J continued to use talc-powder in its popular Baby Powder and Shower To Shower Powder even after it began to replace the mineral with cornstarch powder in other products, and that J&J specifically marketed the talc-based powders to the African-American and Hispanic communities. Ristesund’s cancer is currently in remission after she underwent a full hysterectomy.
"This second jury verdict affirms that Johnson & Johnson knew that its talcum powder products posed a risk to women's health, but they did nothing to warn the public," attorney Ted Meadows of the firm Beasley Allen, who represents Ristesund, said in a statement. "There are safer alternatives made with cornstarch, which Johnson & Johnson also sells. There really was no reason for them to leave this product on the market. At the very least, they could have added a warning label to alert women to the risk of ovarian cancer.”
J&J denied that talc-powder caused Ristesund’s cancer and argued throughout the trial that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration held hearings in the 1990’s on the risks of talc and concluded it was safe. Their attorneys argued the agency stated in 2014 that there was no conclusive evidence of a link between talc-powder-based hygiene products and ovarian cancer.
Company spokeswoman Carol Goodrich told CVN that while J&J sympathizes with women afflicted with ovarian cancer the disease has no known cause.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,” Goodrich said in a statement.
During closing arguments another of Ristesund’s attorneys, Allen Smith of The Smith Law Firm, showed the jury internal J&J documents dating back to the 1970’s that he said proved they knew the potential cancer risks associated with talc-powder. One document from 1992 showed the company intentionally marketed talc-containing products in order to increase sales, Smith argued.
Talcum powder products generated nearly $374 million for J&J in 2014 according to market research firm Euromonitor.
Smith didn’t ask for a specific amount in damages during his closing argument, instead telling jurors that “compensating my client with a significant amount could change their behavior.”
This second major trial loss for J&J could lead to a flood of additional talc-related lawsuits being filed against the company. The firm Beasley Allen, which also represented the plaintiff in the previous Missouri talc-powder trial, has claimed in interviews to be reviewing nearly 5,000 similar cases.
The next talc-powder trial in Missouri is scheduled for September. In 2013 a North Dakota federal jury found J&J to be negligent in the first talc-powder cancer case to go to trial but awarded the plaintiff no damages, according to court records.
Ristesund’s trial took place before Judge Rex Burlison.
Ristesund was represented by Jere L. Beasley, Ted G. Meadows, David P. Dearing, Danielle Ward Mason and Britany Scott of Beasley Allen, Stephanie Rados, James G. Onder and W. Wylie Blair Onder of Shelton O’Leary & Peterson LLC, and by R. Allen Smith, Jr. of The Smith Law Firm.
Johnson & Johnson was represented by Christy Jones of Butler Snow LLP and Gene Williams of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.
Imerys was represented by Nancy Erfle and Kenneth Ferguson of Gordon & Rees LLP.
The case is Ristesund v. Johnson & Johnson et al, case no. 1422-CC09012 in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in Missouri.
-
Jury Orders Johnson & Johnson To Pay $55 Million Over Talc-Based Powder Linked To Ovarian Cancer
May 2, 2016 | Tech Times
By Rhodi Lee
A U.S. Jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman who claimed that using the talc powder products of the company for feminine hygiene led to the development of her ovarian cancer.
The verdict was J&J's second loss for such trial this year. In February, the company was ordered to pay $72 million to the family of a woman who died of ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower for decades.
On May 2, after a three-week trial, state court jurors in St. Louis decided to award Gloria Ristesund $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages.
The 62-year-old was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 after using Johnson & Johnson's talc-based feminine hygiene products for nearly four decades. Ristesund's cancer is in remission after she underwent a hysterectomy.
The company currently faces about 1,200 other lawsuits that accuse it of ignoring studies that link its Shower-to-Shower product and Johnson's Baby Powder to ovarian cancer.
Women claim that the company is aware of the cancer risks of its talc-based products but have failed to give adequate warning to consumers.
J&J spokesperson Carol Goodrich said the company plans to appeal the verdict and will continue to defend the safety of its products. Goodrich cited that the decision is in contrast with 30 years of research that support the safety of cosmetic talc.
"Unfortunately, the jury's decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc," Goodrich said. "Johnson & Johnson has always taken questions about the safety of our products extremely seriously.''
J&J attorney Christy Jones also told jurors that Ristesund had a number of risk factors for ovarian cancer such as having a family history of cancer, having no children and having endometriosis.
Some health experts, however, are skeptical about the safety of talcum powder. In a 2015 study, researchers from the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston surveyed more than 2,000 women with ovarian cancer regarding their talcum powder use.
They found that applying the product to sanitary napkins, underwear and genitals ups risk for ovarian cancer by a third albeit the risks also depend on other factors such as weight, menopausal hormone use and smoking habits.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/155530/20160502/jury-orders-johnson-johnson-to-pay-55-million-over-talc-based-powder-linked-to-ovarian-cancer.htm
-
Johnson & Johnson to Pay Another $55 Million Over Talcum Powder Ovarian Diagnosis
May 2, 2016 | Inquisitr
By Janice Malcolm
On Monday, a U.S. jury in a Missouri court ordered the Johnson & Johnson company to pay $55 million to a 62-year-old South Dakota woman who stated that she got ovarian cancer from using J&J’s talcum powder. It is the second time this year that the company has lost a trial about their talc powder causing cancer.
Gloria Ristesund was awarded a total of $5 million for compensation and another $50 million in punitive damages by state court jurors in St. Louis. Ristesund was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 after using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum based feminine hygiene products for practically 40 years of her life. After having to undergo a hysterectomy and other related surgeries because of the ovarian cancer the southern woman is now, fortunately, in remission.
Christy Jones, a Johnson & Johnson attorney, tried unsuccessfully to argue that Ristesund had several risk factors for ovarian cancer already, such as a family history and endometriosis and also stated that “Nobody knows what causes ovarian cancer.” However, Bloomberg reported that after Gloria Ristesund’s hysterectomy, doctors found talc in her ovarian tissue. She incurred over $174,000 in medical bills and a great deal of pain and suffering.
Johnson & Johnson is facing approximately 1,200 lawsuits from consumers which all accuse the company of inadequate warnings that the talc-based products carried such high cancer risks. Given that this is their second straight loss and with payouts for both coming out to over $50 million, the odds do not seem to be in the company’s favor. It only took a three-week trial in the Missouri state court, and the jurors deliberated for no more than a day before the verdict was returned in the plaintiff’s favor.
The first case Johnson & Johnson lost was back in February, and it was in the same courthouse as well. In that case, the verdict ordered the company to pay $72 million to the family of an Alabama woman who had actually died of ovarian cancer. Jacqueline Fox’s family presented the case that her exposure came from decades of using Johnson & Johnson’s signature Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products.
According to Reuters, the 1,200 lawsuits against J&J will be tried in both state and federal courts, and the women going up against them contend that the company always knew the cancer risks of their Shower-to-Shower product and Johnson’s Baby Powder products. The lawsuits argue that the company ignored studies which linked ovarian cancer to them and hence failed to warn the women who were their customers.
On Friday, Ristesund’s lawyer Allen Smith, said that four decades the woman used the talc products and was unaware of the health concerns, but Johnson & Johnson could claim no such ignorance. According to him, the company has documents which show that they knew of the health risks since the mid-1970s, nonetheless, a 1992 document gave approval to target women, who used the talcum powder products more often, in order to boost sales.
Carol Goodrich, spokeswoman for J&J, argued that the court’s decision is completely contradictory to over 30 years of research that the company has conducted which continues to support their claim that cosmetic talc is safe. Goodrich stated firmly that the company will continue to maintain that their products are quite safe and plan to appeal the decision which the jury has made.
While this is the second trial in which the company has been ordered to pay millions in damages, it is the third trial Johnson & Johnson has lost in relation to their products being linked to cancer. In 2013, a federal trial in a South Dakota court found the company negligent as well, but the jury did not award any damages at that time.
Following the trial win by Jacqueline Fox’s family, thousands of women or their family members contacted the lawyer which represented them and attorney Jere Beasley revealed in an interview that his firm, one of the several undertaking the cases, are currently reviewing over 5,000 complaints.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3057004/johnson-johnson-pay-55-million-over-talc-cancer/#OJhTmyy1Qrt0CBpY.99
-
Another Big Defeat for Johnson & Johnson in Talc-Ovarian Cancer Case
May 2, 2016 | Fair Warning Reports
By Myron Levin
Johnson & Johnson suffered a second straight legal defeat in defense of its signature talc products on Monday when it was ordered to pay $55 million in damages to a woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the use of Johnson’s Baby Powder for feminine hygiene.
After about 10 hours of deliberations, a state court jury in St. Louis, Mo., awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages to Gloria Ristesund, 62, of Sioux Falls, S.D. She was diagnosed with Stage I ovarian cancer in 2011, and had a hysterectomy, including removal of her uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes.
J&J is facing more than 1,200 similar claims on behalf of ovarian cancer victims who say that genital use of its talc powders—baby powder and Shower to Shower—was the cause or a contributing cause of the disease. As reported by FairWarning, in February the health care products giant was slammed with a $72 million loss in a case brought by the family of Jacqueline Fox, a Birmingham, Ala., woman who died of ovarian cancer last year at the age of 62.
But the latest defeat is more significant because the facts seemed much more favorable to the company. Under the procedure being used to handle hundreds of pending claims in St. Louis, plaintiffs got to select the first lawsuit to be tried, the Fox case, and the defense chose the next one, Ristesund. According to evidence in the case, Ristesund had experienced endometriosis and was overweight—both risk factors for ovarian cancer. Moreover, Ristesund has had no recurrence of her cancer since undergoing surgery in 2011. Jurors in cancer cases sometimes show more sympathy for victims who are terminally ill or deceased.
The jury of nine women and three men found J&J and its subsidiary, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., guilty of negligence and failure to warn about the risks of genital use of talc. But the jury rejected an additional claim that the companies had conspired to provide misleading scientific and medical information. As also occurred in the Fox case, J&J’s co-defendant and talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, Inc., was absolved of liability.
Ristesund declined to be interviewed. But Ted Meadows, one of her lawyers, said she is “very happy” about the verdict, “in particular, since she brought this lawsuit … to let the public know of the risks, since Johnson & Johnson seems unwilling to do so.’’
In a prepared statement, J&J spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said the company will appeal the verdict, which “goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc. We understand that women and families affected by ovarian cancer are searching for answers, and we deeply sympathize with all who have been affected by this devastating disease with no known cause.
In a written statement, Imerys spokeswoman Stephanie Fraser said the company’s confidence in the safety of its talc “is supported by the consensus view of qualified scientific experts and regulatory agencies. … Our hearts go out to the women and their families affected by ovarian cancer. We hope the scientific community will continue to focus its efforts and resources on finding the true causes of ovarian cancer to help lead us to a cure for this tragic disease.”
In closing arguments on Friday, Ristesund lawyer R. Allen Smith, Jr. said the case hinged on whether J&J had a duty to warn, and whether genital use of talc caused or contributed to Ristesund’s cancer. “We are not talking about a product that causes a rash,” Smith said. The defendants “have shown complete disregard for the safety of women, and my client.’’
But J&J lawyer Christy D. Jones told the panel that “talc is safe” and “that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the current science is. … You shouldn’t be warning of something that’s not true.’’ In her closing statement, Imerys attorney Nancy M. Erfle said Ristesund’s cancer was ‘’an awful thing for her to go through,” but that “talc is not the reason. …The science supports the safety of talc.’’
Suspicions about talc and ovarian cancer go back decades. In 1971, British researchers analyzed 13 ovarian tumors under a microscope and found talc particles “deeply embedded’’ in 10.
In 1982, the journal Cancer published the first study showing a statistical link between genital talc use and ovarian cancer. The lead author of that study, Dr. Daniel Cramer, a gynecologist and Harvard Medical School professor, recently co-authored a new study that found a 33 percent higher rate of ovarian cancer among women who used talc for feminine hygiene.
In all, about 20 epidemiological studies have found increased rates of ovarian cancer for women who reported using talc for hygiene purposes. But other studies have found no association, and J&J has argued that a causal link between talc and ovarian cancer is not biologically plausible.
In 2016, an estimated 22,280 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the U.S., according to the American Cancer Society, and about 14,240 will die. The disease strikes about one woman in 70. Studies showing a higher rate of ovarian cancer with talc use have typically found an increased risk of about 35 percent—which would put the odds of getting the disease at roughly one in 50.
Prior to the recent litigation, suspicions about the risks of talc were almost unknown outside of the scientific community. The iconic Johnson’s Baby Powder, introduced by J&J in 1894 and used for decades to powder babies’ bottoms, has long been regarded as quintessentially wholesome and benign.
Along with baby powder, the litigation has focused on Shower to Shower, a another talc powder used for feminine hygiene, and marketed to women with ads that said: “A sprinkle a day keeps odor away. … Your body perspires in more places than just under your arms.” In October 2012, for reasons neither company would discuss, J&J sold North American marketing rights for Shower to Shower to Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
Most of the lawsuits are pending in St. Louis and in J&J’s home state of New Jersey. As reported by FairWarning, the wave of claims was triggered by a mystifying verdict in October 2013 in South Dakota. In that pathbreaking case, a federal court jury found J&J liable for failure to warn but awarded zero damages to ovarian cancer victim Deane Berg. The jury foreperson told FairWarning that the panel wasn’t convinced that talc use caused Berg’s cancer, but believed J&J should have put “something on the product to alert the consumers of the possible injury and the possible risk.”
The case brought a slow-building controversy to a head. Plaintiff lawyers, heartened by a liability finding in arch-conservative South Dakota, began churning out the current wave of ovarian cancer claims.
Talc, the softest of minerals, has a multitude of industrial and consumer product uses, including in the manufacture of paints, paper, rubber, roofing and ceramic materials, and even as a food additive, a filler in capsules and pills and in cosmetics.
At various times over the years, health advocates have called for warnings against using talc products for genital hygiene. “Balanced against what are primarily aesthetic reasons for using talc in genital hygiene, the risk benefit decision is not complex,” said one 1999 study. “Appropriate warnings should be provided to women about the potential risks of regular use of talc in the genital area.”
But J&J and other marketers of talc powders have refused on grounds there is no proof of a health risk.
http://www.fairwarning.org/2016/05/talc-ovarian-johnson-johnson/#sthash.U1aKlBZ0.dpuf
-
New Cases Continue to Blame Johnson & Johnson for Cancer Deaths
May 2, 2016 | Law Newz
By James A. Morris Jr.
A Los Angeles lawsuit has joined the surging number of cases insisting Johnson & Johnson failed to warn American women that long-term use of talcum powder can lead to ovarian cancer.
A St. Louis jury in February made it clear in a $72 million damages award that it blamed Johnson & Johnson for the death of 62-year-oldJacqueline Salter Fox in October 2015 because the company promoted its Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder as a genital deodorant decades after studies warned against such use.
In the two months since the St. Louis verdict, Johnson & Johnson has come under further attacks blaming the company and its talc suppliers for ovarian cancer deaths, including another trial in St. Louis and what appears to be the first lawsuit out of Los Angeles. This is no surprise, considering the evidence presented in the Fox case.
Starting in 1971, researchers found talc particles in ovarian tumors, and by 1982 had discovered a 92 percent increase in the risk of developing ovarian cancer. Evidence presented at Fox’s trial showed that Johnson & Johnson was well aware of these studies yet did nothing to warn its consumers. In fact, the company looked at increasing marketing to black and Hispanic women in the 1990s even as it was forced to internally acknowledge the health dangers associated with talc for feminine hygiene, according to evidence presented at Fox’s trial.
“I was raised up on it,” Fox, who was black, said in a deposition before she died. “They was to help you stay fresh and clean … We ladies have to take care of ourselves.”
Johnson & Johnson and its talc supplier, San Jose-based Imerys Talc American are back in court in Missouri this month, defending similar claims brought by a 62-year-old woman who used Baby Powder for decades and developed ovarian cancer in 2011.
Meanwhile, Soren Threadgill of Los Angeles has filed a lawsuitblaming the entire talc supply chain, from a talc mining company to retailers, for making and selling the product that he says caused aggressive ovarian cancer that killed his wife, Eva Marie, in 2012. Eva Marie used Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for 25 years before her cancer diagnosis in 1998. Threadgill wants to put San Jose-based talc mining company Imerys Talc America, the supermarket chain Gelson’s and Rite Aid Corp on trial for her death alongside Johnson & Johnson.
Although the American Cancer Society has been suggesting since 1999 that women use cornstarch-based powder if they want to use a genital deodorant, talc companies have been aggressively countering such information, claiming that evidence linking talc to cancer is not conclusive.
Imerys is the nation’s largest talc supplier and the only supplier of talc for J&J. In 2011, it acquired rival Luzenac – which was named as a defendant but found not liable in the Fox lawsuit even though her attorneys showed that Luzenac executives in the late 1990s lobbied U.S. health officials to keep talc off a list of possible human carcinogens and paid for studies to prove that talc was safe.
Imerys and other companies in the talc supply chain only stopped funding these counter studies less than a decade ago, after acknowledging, as an Imerys executive wrote in an internal document, the “horse has already left the barn.”
Imerys finally did the right thing by consumers in 2006 by adding a warning on a data sheet it provided with its 2,000-pound talc bags, saying that perineal use of talc is a potential risk factor for ovarian cancer. Yet again, the message has not reached consumers.
About 19 percent of U.S. households use J&J’s baby powder, and the entire U.S. market for the product is estimated at only about $18.8 million, but the baby powder brand and the false trust it engenders shores up a $2 billion baby products brand.
That amount is negligible when compared with the liability the company now faces. About 20,000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year and about 14,000 die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Roberta Ness, former president of the American Epidemiological Society and former dean of the University of Texas School of Public Health, testified at Fox’s trial that baby powder use could contribute to an additional 2,500 ovarian cancer cases each year – 1,500 of them fatal.
Ness showed that the statistical link between talc and ovarian cancer was stronger than the association between hormone therapy and increased incidence of breast cancer yet talc providers have not been forced to warn consumers about its dangers.
What can be guaranteed is that victims will get their day in court. This fraud, conspiracy and negligence verdict set a new precedent in holding companies liable not only for what they put in their products, but also for educating the public about any health risks involved.
As a product liability lawyer, I’m hoping this is just the beginning of needed change in an industry too myopically focused on the bottom line.http://lawnewz.com/important/new-cases-continue-to-blame-johnson-johnson-for-cancer-deaths/
-
Third Verdict for Toxic Talc J&J Hit with $55 Million Verdict
May 2, 2016 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
By Jane Akre
This is the second verdict this year against Johnson & Johnson over its talcum powder. On Monday, a jury in Missouri awarded a woman who claims the use of talc by the company caused ovarian cancer $55 million.
Of that $50 million is in punitive damages. In February another St. Louis, Missouri jury awarded a different plaintiff $75 million over her ovarian cancer that led to her death. Of that, $62 million was punitive damages.
The case was tried by the same law firm, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles of Montgomery, Alabama. These are the first talcum powder cases to go to trial. There are more than 1,000 plaintiffs who have filed similar cases.
J&J plans an appeal.
The plaintiff, Gloria Ristesund of South Dakota, used Johnson’s baby powder for nearly 40 years. She was diagnosed with cancer five years ago. She had a hysterectomy and talc was found in her ovarian tissues. Her cancer is in remission.
Interestingly, Bloomberg reports her trial was a “defense pick,” meaning J&J felt the facts in this trial were on its side. Christy Jones, (Butler Snow) defended J&J. She has been lead defense counsel in several pelvic mesh trials.
Shower-to-Shower powder, also made by J&J, is also used by women and advertised as a feminine hygiene product.
Johnson & Johnson says it does not need to warn of the health concerns because there are none.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the word [sic] that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talk,” said a spokesperson. A juror told Bloomberg they felt as though the company knew for decades the product should have contained a warning but did not.
The first talc trial in South Dakota three years ago concluded with a jury verdict finding J&J was negligent but failed to award damages. Another talc trial is scheduled in St. Louis in September.
The problem with talc is it can be contaminated with asbestos fibers. Talc is mined from the soil and can contain magnesium, silicon, oxygen and hydrogen, used to absorb moisture. The American Cancer Society says some talc may contain asbestos.
Johnson & Johnson and its Ethicon division are facing more than 40,000 pelvic mesh trials, many to be heard this year.
http://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/third-verdict-toxic-talc-jj-hit-55-million-verdict/
-
Johnson & Johnson loses second ovarian cancer case, must pay $55mn
May 3, 2016 | RT
HomeAmericaJohnson & Johnson loses second ovarian cancer case, must pay $55mnPublished time: 3 May, 2016 04:10Get short URL© Mike Segar / Reuters132
Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has lost its second legal battle in a row over its talcum powder, which has been alleged to cause cancer. The company must now pay $55 million to a woman who says she got ovarian cancer after using the product.
Less than four months after losing a $72 million case in the same St. Louis, Missouri, courthouse, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $5 million in compensation and $50 million in punitive damages to Gloria Ristesund.
The 62-year old South Dakota woman was diagnosed with cancer in 2011, which she stated was “a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,” which she used for almost 40 years. Ristesund’s cancer is currently in remission, since she underwent a hysterectomy and related surgeries.
Ristesund has also accused J&J of “wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion distribution, marketing, and sale of talcum powder.”
Ristesund is one of over 60 plaintiffs who filed a class-action lawsuit against J&J, its supplier Imerys Talc America Inc and Personal Care Products Council, accusing them of “wrongful conduct” that caused their cancers.
J&J is planning to appeal the verdict. Company spokeswoman Carol Goodrich argued that the jurors’ 9-3 decision in favor of Ristesund contradicted 30 years of research. One of the world’s largest maker of health-care products, J&J has been denying any links between talc and ovarian cancer as well as any need to warn its consumers.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,’’ Goodrich said in astatement. “Johnson & Johnson has always taken questions about the safety of our products extremely seriously,” she added.
J&J attorney Christy Jones also argued that Ristesund had several risk factors for ovarian cancer, including her family history of cancer, endometriosis and the fact she had no children. It has taken the jurors three weeks to reach a verdict, as opinions on whether the talc was a contributing factor in ovarian cancer diverged, Bloomberg reported.
“After we agreed on that, everything was easy,” jury forewoman Teri Brickey of St. Louis said, according to the news outlet.“We felt like they knew for decades that they should have put a warning on this product.”
They did clear J&J’s supplier and co-defendant, Imerys Talc America Inc., of any liability. The New Jersey-based company is facing about 1,200 lawsuits accusing it of failing to adequately warn consumers about its talc-based products' cancer risks.
In February, J&J was ordered to pay $72 million in damages to the family of Jacqueline Salter Fox, who claimed that the company’s talcum powder caused the ovarian cancer that killed her within three years. That case was the first to result in money compensation.
In 2013, a federal jury in Sioux Falls, South Dakota found that plaintiff Deane Berg’s ovarian cancer had been caused in part by Johnson & Johnson’s body powder, but Berg was not awarded any damages.
https://www.rt.com/usa/341649-ovarian-cancer-johnson-powder/
-
May 3, 2016 | International Business Times
By Vittorio Hernandez
It was second straight court loss for multinational Johnson & Johnson when a Missouri court ordered the talc powder maker on Monday to pay $55 million (AUD$71.6 million) to another ovarian cancer patient. It was quick decision as the trial on the lawsuit filed by Gloria Ristesund of South Dakota started on April 11.
The award is broken down into $5 million (AUD$6.5 million) compensatory damages and $50 million (AUD$65 million) punitive damages. In February, Johnson & Johnson suffered its first, in about 1,200 lawsuits, court loss when a jury ordered the company to pay the family of Alabama resident Jacqueline Fox $72 million (AUD$100 million).
Like Fox, Ristesund used Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Powder on her genitals for decades. She was eventually diagnosed with ovarian cancer and went through a hysterectomy and other surgeries, although her cancer is in remission, Reuters reports. Surgeons found talc in Ristesund’s ovarian tissue after the hysterectomy, according to Bloomberg.
As expected, Johnson & Johnson said it would appeal the court’s decision and insisted the decision contradicts three decades of research that say cosmetic talc is safe, says Carol Goodrich, spokeswoman of Johnson & Johnson.
Christy Jones, lawyer of the company, insists that the patient was at risk for ovarian cancer since her family has a history of cancer, she had endometriosis and had no children. Jones points out, “Nobody knows what causes ovarian cancer.”
On news of Johnson & Johnson’s second court loss, shares of the company dipped 18 cents to $112.57 (AUD$146.65) in after-hours trading.
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/another-legal-loss-johnson-johnson-missouri-court-orders-talc-powder-maker-pay-55-million-ovarian
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
EMEA Coverage
APAC Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested