Sullivan -Brill
SCHEDULE A FREE CONSULTATION
(212) 566-1000

After years of ongoing lawsuits alleging Johnson & Johnson hid the associated increased risk to ovarian cancer, the company has finally announced it will discontinue the sale of Talcum Powder products in the U.S and Canada. At the start of this litigation, the goal was only to get the large conglomerate to warn of the increased risk of cancer on the label. The discontinuance of sale and production of talc-based baby powder is a far bigger win for society then anticipated. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the 21,000 plus ovarian cancer diagnosis-es each year are attributable to the genital use of talc powder. This action ensures that there will never be new users and current use of this harmful product will stop.

The talcum powder federal multi-district litigation officially formed in 2016, but there have been single event cases dating back to the 1970s. Johnson & Johnson has aggressively fought the claims defending the purity of the product. Early cases were dismissed or voluntarily discontinued while J&J withheld research and documents indicating that the genital use of talcum powder was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Beginning in 2016, jury trials in Missouri and California began resulting in multi-million dollar verdicts on behalf of victims who developed cancer after using talcum baby powder. Regardless of the trial verdicts, J&J continued to back the product.  The company ignored the scientific evidence that showed an increased risk of cancer from using talc-based powder and continued to put the consumer in harm's way to deepen its own pockets. In 2017, evidence emerged that J&J's talcum powder contained small amounts of asbestos, a dangerous mineral that causes mesothelioma. J&J denied the claims. In October of 2019, the FDA tested random containers of J&J talc powder and found unsafe levels of asbestos. Johnson & Johnson was forced to recall the affected lots. Afterward, they continued to steadfastly defend the product.

The announcement discontinuing the sale of the product comes shortly after the MDL judge ruled that the vast majority of the plaintiff's proposed expert witness testimony was valid and could be heard by the jury at trial.  As J&J pulls the product, it still claims that there is no increased risk of cancer and it continues to sell the product in other countries. It has rationalized the discontinuance of the product as a commercial decision based upon declining sales. Although baby powder makes up only a small portion of Johnson & Johnson's revenue, the talc story has tarnished its reputation.  Regardless of the justifications it gives to the public, the litigation brought to light a blatant disregard for the consumer and a willingness to place profits over the safety of the public. Like many similar litigations in the past, this litigation rid the public of a product that provided no medical benefit, but imposed significant harm.

On May 15, 2020, a proposed plan of settlement was agreed to in the Imerys bankruptcy to compensate women harmed by talcum powder. Imerys has coined itself as the world leader in the production and processing of minerals. The French-based multinational corporation has been named in the talcum powder litigation as the primary supplier for Johnson & Johnson's talcum baby powder. Over the past decade, it has faced liability lawsuits. In 2018, Imerys settled the claims of 22 women for 5.5 million in Missouri prior to trial. The trial proceeded against Johnson & Johnson and resulted in a 4.7 billion dollar verdict. In February 2019, Imerys's North American Subsidies filed for bankruptcy. As part of the bankruptcy resolution, Imerys is proposing, subject to court approval, to auction off the North American operations and put the proceeds into a trust fund for current and future women that develop ovarian cancer from their use of talcum powder. Essentially, it is offering to settle the present and future claims for the fair market value for the North American operations. In return, it will no longer be named as a defendant future liability lawsuits. "Today's announcement marks an important step toward a permanent resolution of historic talc-related liabilities," said Alessandro Dazza, Imerys' Chief Executive Officer. "The Plan, once approved by the relevant Courts, represents a favorable outcome for the Group and the Talc Subsidiaries, and will enable the Group to focus on its current operations and move forward free from these past liabilities." Under the proposed plan, the completion of the sale is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2020. The ramifications for the Talcum Powder multidistrict litigation and for Johnson & Johnson remain unclear. Learn more with Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys in New York.

After years of push back from Johnson & Johnson claiming it's baby powder products are completely safe, J&J has recalled over 33,000 bottles. The recall came after the Food and Drug Administration found unsafe levels of asbestos, a carcinogen, in some bottles.

For years, Johnson & Johnson has defended the purity of baby powder products in lawsuits filed by women throughout the country. The women have alleged that J&J's talc baby powder contained asbestos and fibrous talcum which has caused their ovarian and mesothelioma cancer. The individuals perusing the lawsuit are suing on the grounds that Johnson & Johnson did not warn of the increased risk of developing cancer despite being aware of them for decades, and even going as far as to cover up the evidence. Often times, these diagnoses are fatal and despite numerous extremely high jury verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs, J&J has stood by their product. They have appealed every trial decision and there have been no publicly reported settlements, instead they have vigorously fought individuals who have been harmed by their corporate misconduct.

The tests run by the FDA show trace levels of asbestos in the 22-ounce bottles from lot number 22318RB. Johnson & Johnson responded with the recall, saying they are “taking an overabundance of caution” and they also advise any individuals with baby powder from lot number 22318RB to discontinue use immediately. Although Johnson & Johnson has issued this recall after significant pressure from the FDA and public, they continue to defend their product stating that they will “determine the integrity of the tested sample and the validity of the test results”

The FDA spokeswomen, Gloria Sánchez-Contreras, responded to the accusation stating “The F.D.A. stands by the quality of its testing and results.”

Until this point, Johnson & Johnson has never recalled any of its baby powder products. They have remained on the shelves as many individuals unassumingly continue the use of a product that has caused illness in so many others. Baby powder is classified as a cosmetic product. It has no therapeutic or medical benefit whatsoever. Personal care and cosmetic products do not have to be tested by the FDA before they go to market. They are only tested, very occasionally, after public concern has been raised. Previous FDA tests of J&J baby powder from earlier this year and one from ten years ago did not find asbestos. However, there is no safe level of asbestos. Health risk increase with more frequent use but evidence suggests any amount of exposure can be harmful. Many companies that carry baby powder, such as Rite Aid, Walgreens and CVS have taken all baby powder bottles off its shelves.  Other carriers like Walmart, have chosen to only remove certain lot number bottles of the 22-ounce powder. Other companies have begun to sell and market cornstarch-based alternatives which are said to have the same feeling as talcum powder without the increased risk for disease.

Although baby powder itself makes up a smaller portion of J&J sales, the threat to the company's reputation is significant.  Many consumers are saying enough is enough to the corporation profiting at the expense of their safety. Johnson & Johnson has found themselves in a very unfavorable light as many ongoing litigations have fallen in the plaintiff's favor recently. Time and time again J&J continued corporate misconduct has harmed the consumer. Other litigations Johnson & Johnson are responsible for include; Risperdal, Pelvic Transvaginal Mesh, Pinnacle Acetabular Cup, Xarelto, Marketing for Opioids and many more.  Johnson& Johnson has had complete disregard for the wellbeing of the consumer, selling these harmful products where oftentimes, internal documents confirm that they were aware of the risks but ignored it and hid the knowledge from the public.  Their goal was and continues to be, only to deepen their pockets, even at the expense of the consumer's health. Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys in New York are here to help if you’ve been affected by the Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder recall.

The 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct of Cal. S.F. Cty., has left the future of talcum powder litigation uncertain.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct of Cal. S.F. Cty., (“BMS Decision”) was a consolidated action filed by approximately 60 plaintiffs, the majority of whom were non-residents of California. The plaintiffs alleged injuries due to the use of the prescription drug Plavix, manufactured and sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (“BMS”). Plavix was not developed in California, nor was it marketed, labeled or packaged there. However, BMS derived over 1% of its nationwide sales from California, employed over 250 sales representatives, 160 employees and had 3 small offices. BMS moved to dismiss the non-resident plaintiff's claims on grounds that the California courts could not exercise jurisdiction over the non-resident claims because it violated BMS's Due Process rights. The California courts rejected the argument, and BMS appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the California ruling and held that BMS's activities in California were not sufficient for the California courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over the non-resident's claims.

The Supreme Court case set a new precedent that will apply to other mass tort cases and will have a significant impact on future mass tort litigation. The decision makes it more difficult for nonresidents to join consolidated state litigation. This, in turn, will increase the overall cost of mass litigation and make it more difficult for plaintiffs to join together in large groups that can more effectively fight corporations. Further, it will preclude many claims that don't involve substantial injuries because the cost of bringing such claims individually or in limited groups will not justify the cost of prosecuting them.

In relation to the talcum powder litigation, this ruling has already had an impact in Missouri, and BMS will likely try to use it in California, Delaware and other states. The same day the BMS Decision was released, a Missouri judge declared a mistrial on a talc powder case it was hearing because two of the three plaintiffs were not residences of Missouri. A year later, one of the first talc powder lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, which resulted in a $55 million verdict in 2016, was set aside by an appellate court. Citing the BMS Decision, a three-judge panel deemed the nonresidential plaintiffs unable to join the consolidated litigation in Missouri. "The high court ruled that state courts cannot hear claims against companies that are not based in the state or when the alleged injuries did not occur there,” according to the ruling. This may lead to the dismissal of non-resident claims in the future. A plaintiff's lawyer who recently won a multibillion-dollar verdict in a 22-plaintiff case in Missouri that included non-residents said, in response to J&J's threatened appeal on jurisdictional grounds, “I hope they focus their appeal on jurisdiction because I'm confident we'll win that.” He also stated that he and his team had amassed hundreds of pages of evidence regarding lobbying efforts and J&J focus groups conducted in Missouri, which he feels should be sufficient to overcome the application of the BMS Decision.

For more information about talc powder litigation and your rights, contact our New York City personal injury lawyers at Sullivan & Brill, LLP. Dial (212) 566-1000 or contact us online anytime by clicking here.

On Thursday, the latest jury to consider the link between the genital use of talc powder and ovarian cancer concluded that 22 women developed ovarian cancer from using talc powder. It took the jury less than one day of deliberations to reach its verdict after hearing six weeks of evidence. In this case, unlike all of the previously tried cases, evidence was presented that J&J's talc powder was tainted with asbestos. The jury clearly agreed with the women, awarding them $25 million each in compensatory damages. In addition to that, however, the jury assessed $4.19 billion in punitive damages intended to punish J&J for concealing and denying the link between the genital use of talc powder and the development of ovarian cancer.

J&J'S RESPONSE TO THE VERDICT

After the verdict, a J&J spokesperson rejected the verdict as the product of a “fundamentally unfair process” and vowed to appeal the verdict. Of the eight ovarian cancer cases that have been presented to juries, J&J has lost seven. The verdicts have all been appealed and have either been set aside or are pending decision. J&J has yet to pay any of the verdicts and refuses to either remove its talc products from the market or to place a warning on the label. It claims that the scientific evidence is “inconclusive” as to whether the genital use of talc causes ovarian cancer. Although juries do not seem to agree, two judges, one in New Jersey and one in California, have dismissed cases on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently prove that their use of talc powder caused their ovarian cancer. Both of those decisions have been appealed by the plaintiffs and are pending decision from the appellate court.

CALL OUR NEW YORK CITY TALC POWDER LAWSUIT ATTORNEYS TODAY AT (646) 741-3884

At Sullivan & Brill, LLP, we are dedicated to providing passionate legal assistance. If you have suffered from cancer caused by talc powder, our firm can represent you in court. We can build your case, discuss your options, and work hard to hold Johnson & Johnson, and other companies, responsible for failing to warn consumers about hazardous healthcare products.

Contact our office today to schedule a free consultation.

Read more information about Talc Powder Lawsuits.

Since the 1970s, concerns about Johnson & Johnson's talc powder have grown. Talcum powder is a substance made from a mineral consisting of magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. Since the late 1800's Johnson & Johnson has been adding fragrance to it and marketing it to women for genital use to absorb moisture in the skin and reduce friction. Studies have provided increasing evidence that the product causes ovarian cancer in women who use the powder regularly.

However, the company refuses to put warning labels on its product. Instead of warning women, it continues to target women to increase sales. Six juries in Missouri have heard the evidence against Johnson & Johnson and five of them have found that its conduct warranted a significant award of punitive damages. In the latest development, a California jury, awarded a victim of ovarian cancer $417,000,000, over $300,000,000 of which was punitive damages.

Here's what you need to know about the case.

THE LAWSUIT

Eva Echeverria, a 62-year-old woman, recently brought a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. She claimed its talcum powder was responsible for her ovarian cancer. Echeverria had started using the company's talc powder when she was 11 years old, and her diagnosis of ovarian cancer occurred in 2007.

Johnson & Johnson, the biggest healthcare company in the world, had been aware of concerns about its product for decades. However, it persisted in selling talc powder without warning labels. The repeated use for many years, according to Echeverria, led to the development of her ovarian cancer. She sought to hold the company liable for failing to warn her about the risks associated with its product, and for advertising talc powder to women without disclosing the warnings.

THE CASE

The claim was filed with the California Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The lawsuit is the first talcum powder case to go to trial in California. The trial lasted 3 weeks, and the jury deliberated for two days before making a final judgment.

The selection of the jury began on July 24, 2017, and the opening statements began on July 26. The plaintiff presented arguments for 10 days and presented evidence of five experts. Afterward, the defendant presented counter-arguments for four days, offering testimony of four experts.

THE OUTCOME

Echeverria claimed her use of Johnson & Johnson's talc powder had led to her cancer. The jury found the company, as well as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., liable for her illness. It ordered the company to pay Echeverria a total of $417 million in compensation, including $347 million in punitive damages.

Johnson & Johnson currently faces 5,500 claims in U.S. courts regarding the use of its talc powder, and a spokesperson said it would appeal the court's decision. The company claimed there was not enough evidence to prove that its talc powder caused Echeverria's ovarian cancer. Nonetheless, the jury found the company liable and determined to hold it responsible for the negative health effects of its product and for its irresponsible marketing practices.

CALL OUR NEW YORK CITY TALC POWDER LAWSUIT ATTORNEYS TODAY AT (212) 566-1000

At Sullivan & Brill, LLP, we are dedicated to providing passionate legal assistance. If you have suffered from cancer caused by talc powder, our firm can represent you in court. We can build your case, discuss your options, and work hard to hold Johnson & Johnson, and other companies, responsible for failing to warn consumers about hazardous healthcare products.

Contact our office today to schedule a free consultation.

For more information about Talcum Powder read more here.

Last night, the fifth Missouri jury to consider whether Johnson & Johnson's talc powder caused the Plaintiff's ovarian cancer returned a verdict resoundingly answering that question in the affirmative. It awarded the Plaintiff over $110,000,000, of which, $105,000,000 was punitive damages intending to punish J&J for its deceitful conduct.

The Plaintiff was a resident of West Virginia that had used Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products for over 40 years. At the time of trial, she was battling Stage III(c) ovarian cancer that had reoccurred and spread to her liver. Her case was chosen by the Defense because it felt it had a strong argument that her ovarian cancer was not caused by her use of talc powder. The entire defense centered on that argument and little effort was made to challenge the Plaintiff's evidence that talc generally causes ovarian cancer.

This verdict followed a jury verdict in favor of J&J in March of 2017 and the dismissal of 200 cases in New Jersey by Judge Johnson, who ruled that the Plaintiff's scientific evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that the genital use of talc causes ovarian cancer. That decision is presently on appeal. The first three jury verdicts in St. Louis came down in favor of the Plaintiffs and also included substantial punitive damages awards.

If you or a loved one developed ovarian cancer after the use of talc powder, it's important to speak with a New York City injury lawyer about your legal options. Contact our experienced and dedicated legal team at Sullivan & Brill, LLP to discuss your case. There are no fees until we secure compensation for our clients. Call 212.566.1000 today!

After losing three straight trials in a St. Louis trial court, Johnson & Johnson filed a request that the cases be moved to another court. Three different St. Louis juries in the past year have returned verdicts in excess of $50 million against Johnson & Johnson for failing to warn consumers that genital use of its talc powder increased the risk of ovarian cancer. Rather than accepting these verdicts and removing its talc based products from the market, Johnson & Johnson continues to maintain that its talc powder is safe.

It explains the verdicts by asserting that the plaintiff's lawyers have tainted the jury pool by spending $10 million advertising the dangers of talc powder in the past year, a disproportionate amount, they claim, being spent in St. Louis. The trial judge that has presided over the three trials, Judge Rex Burlison, denied Johnson & Johnson's request. Johnson & Johnson is appealing that decision to Missouri's intermediate appellate court, the Missouri Court of Appeals. Call Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys to learn more about how these legal battles impact victims and their rights.

In the past two months, there have been three significant developments in the talc powder litigation pending in state and federal court. First, on September 2, 2016, a New Jersey judge dismissed 200 cases pending against Johnson & Johnson in state court. The judge found that the plaintiff's experts did not reliably establish the connection between the perineal use of talc powder and ovarian cancer. You can read the judges decision here. Lawyers on behalf of the plaintiffs are appealing this decision.

The following month, on October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation issued a decision consolidating all federal cases pending against Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc America, Inc. This decision creates what is commonly known as in MDL, or multidistrict litigation. A multidistrict litigation is a mechanism to consolidate similar lawsuits pending in federal court around the country into one centralized federal court. In this case, the panel chose the District of New Jersey and assigned the case to Judge Wolfson, who is presently presiding over the most advanced case pending against Johnson & Johnson in federal court. The consolidation of cases allows plaintiffs attorneys from across the country to pool their resources, it voids duplicative discovery in multiple jurisdictions and minimizes inconsistent judicial rulings.

Finally, on October 27, 2016, a St. Louis Missouri jury returned a verdict excess of $70 million. This was the third case to go to trial against Johnson & Johnson. The first two cases went to trial in early 2016 and resulted in verdicts of $50 million and $70 million. In all three cases, the jury was convinced that Johnson & Johnson was aware that the perennial use of its talc powder carried an increased risk of causing ovarian cancer, yet it did not warn consumers of this danger. Some of the scientific research and documents produced in the litigation establish that Johnson & Johnson was aware of this risk as early as the 1970s.

These developments clearly indicate that this litigation is picking up steam quickly. They also indicated, however, that the ultimate outcome of the litigation is far from clear. Johnson & Johnson will surely challenge the plaintiffs' expert testimony in the MDL and will ask Judge Wolfson to dismiss all cases pending in federal court on the same grounds that the New Jersey state court cases were dismissed. Call Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys to get expert legal advice and support for your talc powder-related injury claims.

AREAS WE SERVE

Our firm serves clients throughout New York State, including New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Binghamton, Albany, Syracuse, and Long Island.

OFFICE LOCATIONS

Sullivan & Brill, LLP
110 E. 59th Street, Floor 23,
New York, NY 10022
Sullivan & Brill, LLP
50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1400,
Buffalo, NY 14202

Copyright © Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys

chevron-down