Preview Newsletter
Cosmetic Talc Litigation Media Coverage July 27, 2016
-
Johnson & Johnson Offered Woman $1.3 Million To “Keep Quiet” About Talcum Powder Cancer Link
Jul 26, 2016 | The Ring Of Fire Network
By Gary Bentley
Johnson & Johnson is being hit with lawsuits all over the country over the link between their talcum powder and ovarian cancer. But what most people don’t know is that several years ago the company offered a woman $1.3 million to keep the link between talc and cancer quiet from the public. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this. -
Plaintiffs Want MDL Status for J&J Talc-Ovarian Cancer Suits
Jul 26, 2016 | Legal Reader
By Jay W. Belle Isle
Earlier this month, plaintiffs firm Don Barret filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate the many suits against Johnson & Johnson regarding its talc-powder products. -
Woman Files Talcum Powder Suit, Says Products ‘Far More Dangerous than Helpful
Jul 26, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing
A new talcum powder lawsuit has been filed in Missouri federal court, with the plaintiffs alleging that at least 20 scientific studies have found increased rates of ovarian cancer among women using talc for hygienic purposes. -
The Science Behind Winning Talc Powder Trials: Guest Analysis from Innovative Science Solutions (Video)
Jul 26, 2016 | CVN
By David Schwartz, Ph.D.
Litigation over the cancer risks of Johnson & Johnson’s talc powder products is heating back up after juries delivered two historic multi-million verdicts earlier this year, with trials slated for September in Missouri and October in New Jersey.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
-
Johnson & Johnson Offered Woman $1.3 Million To “Keep Quiet” About Talcum Powder Cancer Link
Jul 26, 2016 | The Ring Of Fire Network
By Gary Bentley
Johnson & Johnson is being hit with lawsuits all over the country over the link between their talcum powder and ovarian cancer. But what most people don’t know is that several years ago the company offered a woman $1.3 million to keep the link between talc and cancer quiet from the public. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.
Transcript of the above video:
By now, I’m sure everyone has seen headlines talking about Johnson and Johnson losing several trials where they’ve had to pay out tens of millions of dollars because their talcum powder has been linked to cases of ovarian cancer in women. Now, here’s the story that very few people understand about all this.
The very first lawsuit filed against Johnson and Johnson came from a woman named Diane Berg in the year 2009. She developed ovarian cancer at the age of forty nine. She had been using talcum powder made by Johnson and Johnson for most of her life for feminine hygiene needs. In 2009, develops ovarian cancer, files a suit.
Four years later, Johnson and Johnson came at her with a $1.3 million offer to settle, but as part of that settlement, Johnson and Johnson wanted her to sign a nondisclosure. Meaning that she could never tell anyone, friends, family, especially not the press that talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer. Essentially, Johnson and Johnson wanted to pay her a million dollars to keep her quiet and not let this story make it to the public.
Now, she declined that money and in the jury trial, she was awarded no money whatsoever, but the jury did find that Johnson and Johnson’s talcum powder was linked to ovarian cancer. Ms. Berg explains it was never about the money. She declined that offer because she wanted this story to make it to the American public, to the world, so that people could understand that this company, Johnson and Johnson, for forty years, they knew about the link between cancer and their talcum powder and they hid it from the American public. They did everything they could to prevent women all over this country from understanding that the powder they were using everyday could kill them. Johnson and Johnson knew that.
You see, talcum talc is a mineral, much like asbestos. Just like asbestos, when it builds up in the body, it creates cancer. Again, Johnson and Johnson knew this for forty years and they did absolutely nothing. They increased their marketing in low income areas, minority areas. They specifically targeted black and Latino women with this product and they have since developed ovarian cancer as a result.
Johnson and Johnson is almost just as bad of a criminal organization as you can find in this country today. I think probably only DuPont and Monsanto topped them in the caliber of criminal conduct that we see coming out of them everyday. That’s what these lawsuits are about. It’s not about people wanting to get rich quick, it’s people wanting to expose the lies of this company.
That’s what most lawsuits are about. It’s not about the money and it never has been, according these victims. They just want people to be aware of what this company has done, so that they can protect themselves because Johnson and Johnson certainly isn’t going to tell the truth, unless they’re forced to.
http://trofire.com/2016/07/26/johnson-johnson-offered-woman-1-3-million-keep-quiet-talcum-powder-cancer-link/
-
Plaintiffs Want MDL Status for J&J Talc-Ovarian Cancer Suits
Jul 26, 2016 | Legal Reader
By Jay W. Belle Isle
Earlier this month, plaintiffs firm Don Barret filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate the many suits against Johnson & Johnson regarding its talc-powder products. Plaintiffs want MDL status for J&J talc-ovarian cancer suits as an MDL would make pre-trial items, such as discovery, much easier and convenient. If approved, the MDL would be overseen by U.S. District Judge David Herndon in the Southern District of Illinois. The venue was chosen as it “would permit convenient travel for the parties and counsel as compared to the east or west coast,” according to the motion. Plaintiffs reside in multiple states.
The suits have one common claim: prolonged use of J&J’s talc-powder products (Baby Powder and Shower to Shower) on or around the female genital area increases their risk of developing ovarian cancer. The alleged mechanism for cancer growth is that the talc migrates into the vagina, eventually reaching the ovaries, where it allegedly creates a certain type of inflammation. This inflammation is, pardon the pun, fertile ground for the development of cancer.
Another allegation, backed up by decades-old research, is that J&J knew of the potential risk of its talc-based products causing ovarian cancer but actively hid it from the public. There are currently around 11 claims in 10 different federal jurisdictions and many cases have been filed in state courts, specifically in St. Louis, Missouri and the New Jersey Superior Court.
The motion to create a MDL does not bode well for J&J, deservedly so. The company has been hit with at least two multi-million dollars verdicts over the link between ovarian cancer and its talc-based products.
One suit, Ristesund v. Johnson & Johnson, Imerys Talc America, Inc., involved a 62-year-old South Dakota woman. She’d used J&J’s talc-based products for almost 40 years and received an ovarian cancer diagnosis in 2011. She had a hysterectomy and is currently in remission. That St. Louis, Missouri jury handed down a verdict of $5M in compensatory damages and $50M in punitive damages.
An even bigger loss for J&J came in February of this year in Hogans v. Johnson & Johnson. This case was brought by the victim’s family after she died of ovarian cancer. The jury, St. Louis again, awarded the family $72M.
Melanie Muhlstock, Managing Attorney at Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm specializing in product liability said, “The firm hopes that, as litigation continues, just compensation continues for women and their families who have suffered serious injuries, even death, following use of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products.”
I share Ms. Muhlstock’s hope. The fact that talc has been linked to ovarian cancer in a number of studies dating back to the early 70s says, to me, that J&J should have at least issued a warning of the possibility of ovarian cancer developing as a result of using its talc-based products. Some studies are inconclusive, while others show a link. Even where there is a mere hint of possible risk, a responsible company should warn its customers of that risk.
http://www.legalreader.com/plaintiffs-want-mdl-status-for-jj-talc-ovarian-cancer-suits/
-
Woman Files Talcum Powder Suit, Says Products ‘Far More Dangerous than Helpful
Jul 26, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing
ST. JOSEPH, Mo. – A new talcum powder lawsuit has been filed in Missouri federal court, with the plaintiffs alleging that at least 20 scientific studies have found increased rates of ovarian cancer among women using talc for hygienic purposes.
Plaintiffs Delores Cerrone-Kennedy and Josh Kennedy filed the complaint on July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, contending that Delores’ use of Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products caused her to develop ovarian cancer.
“But these products are far more dangerous than helpful,” the complaint alleged. “And Johnson & Johnson knew it.”
The Kennedys said ...
Subscription required, for full story: http://harrismartin.com/article/21133/woman-files-talcum-powder-suit-says-products-far-more-dangerous-than-helpful/
-
Jul 26, 2016 | CVN
By David Schwartz, Ph.D.
Litigation over the cancer risks of Johnson & Johnson’s talc powder products is heating back up after juries delivered two historic multi-million verdicts earlier this year, with trials slated for September in Missouri and October in New Jersey. Courtroom View Network hopes to webcast both trials, and as a lead up we are featuring a guest column by Dr. David Schwartz, Ph.D. of Innovative Science Solutions, breaking down some of the key scientific studies and expert testimony backing up the legal arguments in these high-stakes cases.
Video Analysis: Don’t Let Plaintiff (Or Defense) Experts Play Fast And Loose With The Science
Johnson and Johnson has recently litigated two cases involving allegations that genital use of its cosmetic talcum powder product causes ovarian cancer. In February 2016, they lost a $72 million verdict to a St. Louis woman who died of ovarian cancer, and more recently they lost a $55 million verdict to a South Dakota woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on genital talc use. In this post we discuss some of the epidemiological studies related to talc and ovarian cancer and then provide some analysis of a short piece of plaintiff expert testimony in a recent talc case. To illustrate, we have embedded video testimony of Dr. Daniel Cramer in the Gloria Ristesund v. Johnson & Johnson case.
TALC EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES ARE KEY PIECES OF EVIDENCE IN PLAINTIFF CASE
As the cornerstone to their cases, plaintiffs have used the epidemiology purporting to show associations between talc use and cases of ovarian cancer. Scientists have conducted both case control and cohort epidemiological studies evaluating the alleged association.1
To date, only case control studies have reported statistically significant associations. The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium pooled eight case control studies and reported a summary OR of 1.24 (CI = 1.15 – 1.33). The cohort studies that have been conducted (e.g., The Nurse’s Health Study and the Women’s Health Initiative) hare reported slightly elevated, but statistically non-significant elevated risk ratios.
TALC EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES SUFFER FROM BIAS
There are very real methodological concerns with case control studies assessing the risk of ovarian cancer with talc exposure. Even the American Cancer Society states “these types of studies [case control epidemiological studies] can be biased because they often rely on a person’s memory of talc use many years earlier.” Nevertheless, these elevated ORs will be referred to by plaintiff experts as evidence that talc causes ovarian cancer.
In confronting the use of epidemiological studies (especially case control studies) in this type of case, the devil is always in the details. Experts (both plaintiff and defense) often play fast and loose with the data and fail to mention fatal inconsistencies in an individual study that he or she relies upon.
Dr. Cramer Relies on “The Wu Study”
Below we demonstrate how, Dr. Daniel Cramer – an epidemiologist testifying for plaintiffs in the talc litigation – fails to address or account for critically inconsistent data within a study that he cites as part of his testimony. Specifically, the study asserts that inflammation increases the risk of talc-induced ovarian cancer; but Cramer fails to explain why anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g., non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or NSAIDs) also increase the risk for talc-induced ovarian cancer.
In the video clip below, Cramer relies on a study by Wu and colleagues in his direct examination in the Ristesund case.
Dr. Cramer refers to Table 3 from the Wu paper in which the authors purport to show that the risk ratio for ovarian cancer increases if women had a history of endometriosis and talc use.
Cramer sets up the importance of the Wu study – i.e., specifically the importance of endometriosis in talc’s ability to cause ovarian cancer - with the following testimony: “There are two important interactions here: one, the interaction of the talc use and the BMI, and the second, the possible interaction between the talc use and the endometriosis.”
THE WU STUDY SUFFERS FROM MAJOR INCONSISTENCIES
The importance of this finding to the Ristesund case is that the plaintiff, Ms. Ristesund, had endometriosis. The clear implication by Dr. Cramer is that plaintiff’s endometriosis – an inflammatory condition – enhanced her susceptibility to ovarian cancer in the presence of talc. In fact, the title of the article is “Markers of inflammation and risk of ovarian cancer in Los Angeles County.” (emphasis added)
To test the core hypothesis of the paper, it would be critical to know what effect anti-inflammatory drugs had on the risk of ovarian cancer. According to Cramer’s theory, cosmetic talcum powder use is an event that increases the risk of ovarian cancer, and is associated with chronic inflammation. Based on this premise, anti-inflammatory drugs such as NSAIDs would be expected to decreasethe risk for ovarian cancer.
But in the Wu study that Cramer relies on, NSAIDs actually increased the risk for ovarian cancer. As the authors state:
“However, contrary to the study hypothesis that NSAIDs may have chemopreventive effects by decreasing inflammation,6 we found that risk of ovarian cancer increased significantly with increasing frequency and duration of NSAIDs use.” (emphasis added)
Dr. Cramer was never asked about the findings related to NSAIDs or how these findings differed dramatically from the very hypothesis offered up in the paper. Or how the findings differed from other well established findings in the literature, and actually contradict Cramer’s own chronic inflammation hypothesis.
This case highlights the need to develop an intimate familiarity with all of the scientific literature related to your adversary’s case and to be prepared to counter these arguments by pointing out fatal inconsistencies in the findings.
http://blog.cvn.com/the-science-behind-winning-talc-powder-trials-guest-analysis-from-innovative-science-solutions-video
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested