Preview Newsletter
Cosmetic Talc Litigation Media Coverage June 23, 2016
-
Top talcum brands under scanner for cancer-causing substances
Jun 22, 2016 | Money Control (CNBC-TV)
By Priya Sheth
Maharashtra FDA has taken the lead in conducting the first round of test on sample of HUL's Ponds, Johnson and Johnson's Baby powder and ITC's Shower to Shower brands. -
Johnson & Johnson Defendants Remove Recently Filed New Mexico Talc-Based Powder Complaint
Jun 22, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing
Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. have removed a talc-based powder exposure case to a New Mexico federal court, contending that 11 of the plaintiffs are completely diverse from all five named defendants and, further, only four of the plaintiffs are or have been New Mexico residents. -
No Daubert, No Gatekeeper?: Missouri Mass Tort Verdicts Linked to Handling of Science Evidence
Jun 22, 2016 | The National Law Journal
By Amanda Bronstad
When a St. Louis courthouse was the venue where three juries issued substantial verdicts this year against Johnson & Johnson and Monsanto Co., it came as little surprise to the defense bar, which has long complained about the standards under which Missouri's courts admit scientific evidence.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
-
Top talcum brands under scanner for cancer-causing substances
Jun 22, 2016 | Money Control (CNBC-TV)
By Priya Sheth
Maharashtra FDA has taken the lead in conducting the first round of test on sample of HUL's Ponds, Johnson and Johnson's Baby powder and ITC's Shower to Shower brands.
Popular talcum powder brands have come under the scanner of the state Food and Drug Administration on suspicions of containing carcinogenic substances like asbestos, reports CNBC-TV18. Maharashtra FDA has taken the lead in conducting the first round of tests on samples of HUL 's Ponds, Johnson & Johnson's Baby powder and ITC 's Shower to Shower brands. Test samples have been collected from Mumbai as well as Thane and results are expected by the end of the month, sources say. It must be noted that India's child rights body has written to state secretaries of five states seeking tests on Johnson’s baby powder and shampoo. In a written response to CNBC-TV18, HUL said all of the company's cosmetic products including Ponds are safe and compliant with required standards. Maharashtra FDA had already sought some data from the company in February 2016 and this was the second round of testing for its products. ITC also said it has been in proactive consultations with authorities and their products are safe. Johnson, however, did not respond to the query. Watch video for more.http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/cnbc-tv18-comments/top-talcum-brands-under-scanner-for-cancer-causing-substances_6911261.html
-
Johnson & Johnson Defendants Remove Recently Filed New Mexico Talc-Based Powder Complaint
Jun 22, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. –– Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. have removed a talc-based powder exposure case to a New Mexico federal court, contending that 11 of the plaintiffs are completely diverse from all five named defendants and, further, only four of the plaintiffs are or have been New Mexico residents.
In the June 20 removal notice filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, the defendants further said that they will be filing a motion to dismiss the 13 non-NewMexico plaintiffs for lack of jurisdiction.
“None of the Defendants in this case ...
Subscription required, for full story: http://harrismartin.com/article/20980/johnson-johnson-defendants-remove-recently-filed-new-mexico-talc-based-powder-complaint/
-
No Daubert, No Gatekeeper?: Missouri Mass Tort Verdicts Linked to Handling of Science Evidence
Jun 22, 2016 | The National Law Journal
By Amanda Bronstad
When a St. Louis courthouse was the venue where three juries issued substantial verdicts this year against Johnson & Johnson and Monsanto Co., it came as little surprise to the defense bar, which has long complained about the standards under which Missouri's courts admit scientific evidence.
From February to May, three separate juries in the city of St. Louis issued verdicts of $72 million and$55 million in cases involving women who claimed their use of talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer, and $46.5 million for three people claiming their non-Hodgkin lymphoma came from eating foods contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Previous trials in other venues had ended in defense verdicts.
No sooner had the ink dried on the verdict forms when groups like the American Tort Reform Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce chastised the courthouse, which sits across the Mississippi River from the asbestos docket of Madison County, Illinois. Both groups have historically ranked Missouri — and the 22nd Judicial Circuit in St. Louis in particular — among the worst places in the nation for a corporation to be sued.
Chief among their complaints are the Show Me State's rules under which judges decide which scientific evidence goes to trial.
"Scientific causation is not an easy thing: Just because one thing follows something else doesn't mean it was caused by it," said Victor Schwartz, a partner in the Washington office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon and general counsel to the American Tort Reform Association. His firm represented Johnson & Johnson in the talcum-powder trials. "This is a court where plaintiffs' lawyers think they're going to have a better opportunity than elsewhere."
Plaintiffs' attorneys attributed their wins in St. Louis to other factors, such as plaintiffs with cleaner medical histories and experts who became available.
"This is typical of what we see in litigation, where the defendants are on the ropes, or had some big verdicts rendered against them," said Ted Meadows, a principal at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery who won both talcum-powder verdicts. "If they can't beat you in the courtroom, they say the rules are stacked against them."
Johnson & Johnson and Monsanto both insist that the verdicts go against the scientific evidence. Their statements reflect the defense bar's ire over Missouri's failure to adopt the federal rules of evidence, known as the Daubert standard, which sets forth the criteria that judges use in determining whether certain scientific expert testimony should be admissible.
The Daubert standard, named for the 1993 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, has been adopted by federal courts and courts in about 40 states. Its application institutes "some pretty exacting standards, so as not to get junk science before jurors," said Harold Kim, executive vice president of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform.
In Missouri, scientific evidence is outlined by statute. Missouri's legislature passed a bill this year that would repeal the statute, but Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, hasn't signed it. Missouri's current statute generally focuses more on whether the expert's opinion is "reasonably relied upon by experts in the field."
"The ambiguous area is what is reasonable?" Kim said.
And unlike judges on courts that have adopted Daubert, Missouri's judges serve less as "gatekeepers" to the evidence, Schwartz said. "The judges in St. Louis may see their role as being more passive and letting the jury decide these things," he said.
And juries in the city of St. Louis have decided differently than those in other venues — even in the neighboring St. Louis County courthouse in suburban Clayton, Missouri, where two cases ended in a defense win and a mistrial.
Yet putting the burden on judges to determine eligible scientific evidence, as Daubert does, isn't necessarily the better standard, said Ken Barnes, who serves on the executive committee of the Missouri Association of Trial Lawyers, which has lobbied against legislation to repeal Missouri's statute.
"Judges aren't scientists," said Barnes, of the Barnes Law Firm in Kansas City, Missouri. "If there is a dispute in the literature, it asks the judge to decide if this side is right, or that side is right, which isn't really the focus or the intent of the judge."
None of that mattered in the first three Monsanto trials anyway, said Steve Kherkher, a partner at Houston's Williams Kherkher. He said one of his key experts in the winning case wasn't even available at that time of those trials in 2014 and 2015. And though she testified this year in two other cases in Los Angeles, which both ended in defense verdicts, he credited his victory in St. Louis to something altogether different: The three plaintiffs in the case, all of whom were healthy save for their PCB exposure.
In the talcum-powder cases, Meadows said his chief expert also testified in a 2013 case in South Dakota, where a federal judge would have followed Daubert standards anyway. That case ended in a mixed verdict.
"These experts testifying in these trials are not Johnny-come-latelys," Meadows said. "These are major researchers, most of whom have written on the subject long before lawyers came along."
http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202760653554/No-Daubert-No-Gatekeeper-Missouri-Mass-Tort-Verdicts-Linked-to-Handing-of-Science-Evidence?slreturn=20160523030623
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested