Johnson & Johnson faces over 16,000 lawsuits nationwide related to baby powder products contaminated with talcum powder. These lawsuits allege that for over 40 years, Johnson & Johnson has known that its products have been linked to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. However, J&J chose not to warn the public about its dangers.
Women who use talcum powder regularly for personal hygiene are particularly susceptible to the risk of cancer associated with talc.
Some Johnson & Johnson talc cases have gone to trial throughout the country, including one that resulted in a $4.69 billion verdict for 22 plaintiffs. But the vast majority of the 16,000-plus pending cases are waiting before U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson in New Jersey. They have been consolidated through a process called Multi-District Litigation.
The judge overseeing talcum powder cases issues ruling on a disastrous motion
On Monday, April 27, 2020, Judge Wolfson issued her ruling on a decisive motion that had the potential to derail claims for thousands of plaintiffs. Johnson & Johnson’s lawyers filed a motion that, if granted, would have prohibited all plaintiffs from calling expert witnesses on their behalf.
This would have all but ended the plaintiffs’ claims. Without expert testimony, there is no way to explain to the jury the link between the plaintiffs’ conditions and Johnson & Johnson’s products.
How does a judge look at scientific evidence in these cases?
In any case, a judge serves as the gatekeeper of the evidence that goes to the jury. The judge decides what evidence is fair for the jury to see in a given case.
Prior court decisions have established certain criteria for judges to look at when evaluating whether to admit evidence such as expert testimony.
Arising from a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals[1], the standard is intended to ensure that expert testimony is based on scientifically valid reasoning that it can be properly applied to the facts of the case.
The Daubert standard looks to factors like whether the scientific technique or theory has been tested, whether it has been subject to peer review, and whether it has gained widespread acceptance in the relevant field.
Judge Wolfson denied the motion, ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor
In denying the motion, Judge Wolfson found there was an appropriate scientific basis to allow the plaintiffs’ experts to testify that talc could be contaminated with asbestos, and can reach the ovaries when used for feminine hygiene.
The ruling did not come without restriction, however, as Judge Wolfson ruled that plaintiffs’ experts will not be allowed to testify that talc can travel to the ovaries if it is inhaled, and cannot testify that talc itself causes cancer.
Despite these restrictions, however, this ruling should be seen as a significant victory for plaintiffs making talcum powder claims. It ensures the plaintiffs will be able to fully explain the link between the contaminants in the talcum powder and cancer from which the plaintiffs now suffer.
Diagnosed with cancer after using talcum baby powder? Contact us today.
If you have a history of regular talcum powder use and have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer or mesothelioma, you may have a claim against Johnson & Johnson. If you have questions about talcum powder claims, you should contact the attorneys at Shannon Law Group.
Call us at (312) 578-9501 or fill out the form at the bottom of this page to get started. Our consultations are always free.
[1] 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
Schedule Your Free Consultation Today
Recent Blog Posts
How to File an HPV Vaccine Lawsuit in the VICP
By Katelyn Pater |
Tetanus Shot Side Effects in Adults: What You Need to Know
By Katelyn Pater |
