Recent News

$1.25M Verdict Returned Against Boehringer Ingelheim Over Pradaxa Blood Thinner

Posted by | Dangerous Drugs & Devices | No Comments

Ridgefield, Connecticut-based Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. was not upfront about the risks of its blood thinner, Pradaxa, a federal jury found Wednesday evening before returning a $1.25 million award for the family of an 84-year-old woman who died of severe bleeding.


Researchers link ride-share companies to rise in fatal traffic accidents

Posted by | Automobile Accident | No Comments

The arrival of ride-sharing services has resulted in an increase fatal traffic accidents in U.S. cities, a draft paper released Thursday shows.

The research, produced in collaboration between the University of Chicago and Rice University, shows that the ride-share apps are associated with a two- to three-percent increase in the number of fatalities for both vehicle occupants and pedestrians.

In 2010, the total number of traffic fatalities reached its lowest since 1949 at 32,885, but since then those numbers have slowly begun to rise.

The yet-to-be-published research compares publicly available national traffic safety data to dates that Uber and Lyft started operating in each analyzed city. It then looks at the accident rate per vehicle mile traveled in the city.

The researchers noted that they did not compare costs with the “many benefits that accrue from the presence of ride-sharing in a city.”

“These include improved mobility for the disabled and for minorities, flexible job opportunities that are especially valuable to those otherwise at high risk of unemployment, and customer convenience and resulting consumer surplus,” they wrote.

They also did not consider the cost of non-fatal accidents, because “data is not readily available.”

Representatives from Lyft did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment.

Uber said its data science team reviewed the report and “found it to be flawed.”

“Uber has contributed to safety in many ways and we take our responsibility to help keep people safe seriously. That’s why we’ve rolled out features to reduce the risk of drowsy driving and notify drivers of their speed on the road and will continue to do more,” a spokesperson said.



NY limo wreck victim texted concerns just before crash

Posted by | Automobile Accident | No Comments

One of the 20 people killed in the New York limousine crash over the weekend texted that the vehicle “was in bad condition” just moments before she was killed. A friend of victim Erin McGowan told The New York Times that the limo’s motor “was making everyone deaf.” The Times also reports the driver didn’t have the correct license and that the limousine company, Prestige Limousines, had a history of failing inspections. Slate reports that four of the company’s vehicles had been pulled off the road after failing inspections. The chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board says “This is the most deadly transportation accident in this country since February of 2009.” 18 passengers in the limo and two pedestrians were killed.



NTL member Brent Goudarzi gets $101M, $27M verdicts

Posted by | Automobile Accident | No Comments

On July 19, 2018, an Upshur County, Texas jury returned a $101.1 million dollar verdict against Fort Worth-based FTS International Services, LLC and its employee, Bill Acker.  While operating an 18-wheeler in September 2013 in Ore City, Texas, Mr. Acker rear ended the plaintiff, Joshua Patterson, who was represented by Goudarzi & Young, LLP.  Post-accident drug testing revealed that at the time of the accident, Mr. Acker had marijuana and methamphetamines in his system.  The plaintiff also put on evidence that, although FTS had robust internal policies and procedures, FTS disregarded said procedures as they related to the hiring and training of Mr. Acker.  In defense, FTS attempted to paint itself as a company that takes training and safety very seriously by offering evidence that purportedly demonstrated that Mr. Acker received extensive new driver training, including defensive driving training and drug and alcohol training, and that FTS had the highest FMCSA safety rating.  The jury found both FTS and Mr. Acker negligent and grossly negligent.

As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered neck and back injuries that ultimately required a disc replacement surgery in his spine.

The plaintiff was represented by National Trial Lawyers member Brent Goudarzi and Marty Young of Goudarzi & Young, LLP in Gilmer, Texas.  Defendant FTS International Services, LLC was represented by Pat Long, managing partner of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP in Dallas, Texas and Keith Starr of Starr Schoenbrun & Comte PLLC in Tyler, Texas.  Defendant Bill Acker was represented by Snow Bush of Longview, Texas.


Just two and-a-half months later—on October 11, 2018—another Upshur County, Texas jury returned a $27.4 million verdict for an East Texas plaintiff injured in a 2016 automobile accident.  The plaintiff, 55-year old Hershell Wingfield of Gilmer, also represented by Goudarzi & Young, LLP, was at a complete stop attempting to make a left-hand turn when he was rear-ended by another vehicle traveling 60-65 miles per hour.  The offending vehicle was driven by Shane Wood, an employee of Multiband Field Services, Inc.  As a result of the collision, Mr. Wingfield sustained injuries to his neck and back which required multiple surgeries and the implantation of a spinal cord stimulator.  The jury found both the driver and the company were negligent in causing the plaintiff’s injuries.  After receiving the verdict, Mr. Wingfield’s attorney, NTL member Brent Goudarzi, stated, “this is another strong reminder that the good people of Upshur County will not tolerate corporate indifference when it comes to hiring and training employees who operate motor vehicles in our community.”

The defendants were represented by David Merkley and Sarah Jones of the law firm of Germer in Houston, Texas, Jessica Barger and Andrew Nelson of the law firm Wright, Close & Barger in Houston, Texas, Michael Tiliakos and Anthony Rao, in-house counsel for Goodman Networks (the parent company of Multiband Field Services) in New York, New York, and Curtis Fenley of the law firm of Fenley & Bates in Lufkin, Texas.

The Honorable Lauren Parish, District Judge of the 115th Judicial District, presided over both trials.


Talcum Cancer Lawsuit in California Based on Trust

Posted by | Dangerous Drugs & Devices | No Comments

Plaintiff’s attorney during opening arguments in California courtroom says the talc cancer lawsuit is about trust.

Los Angeles, CAIn the sixth talcum powder-cancer trial that began last month in California, Johnson & Johnson is accused of knowing its talcum powder contained asbestos, a carcinogen known to cause mesothelioma. Plaintiff Carolyn Weirick last year was diagnosed with the rare form of terminal cancer. She claims her illness was caused by using J&J’s baby powder.

Weirick’s attorney Jay Stuemke told jurors that this case is about a breach of trust by Johnson & Johnson and to a lesser extent by Imerys Talc America that supplied J&J. That trust has been going on for more than a century based on the image of a mother and child. He said that J&J sought to make this connection deliberately, and its literature had described the baby powder as the purest substance, according to Courtroom View Network.

Defense attorney Christopher Vejnoska attempted to invoke jurors’ doubt by questioning whether asbestos was the cause of Weirick’s mesothelioma. “It’s unfortunate, but sometimes, cancer just happens,” he said. “And that’s not an excuse. That’s just science.” But exposure to asbestos is the only known cause of mesothelioma, according to the Mesothelioma Group, while states that working with asbestos is the main risk factor for mesothelioma. All medical experts agree that inhaling or ingesting asbestos causes these microscopic fibers to get lodged in the lining of the chest or abdomen. The fibers can eventually cause tumors to develop because the body is incapable of expelling them.

A New Jersey jury in April 2018 concluded that J&J and Imerys officials knew for years their talc contained trace amounts of asbestos. The verdict was the first time a jury lined up behind a consumer’s claims that J&J’s baby powder and former Shower-to-Shower product can cause mesothelioma, reported Bloomberg. David Logan, law professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, said that asbestos “was a really bad product and J&J shouldn’t have been within a thousand miles of having it in its baby powder.” Evidence during that trial included a 1969 confidential memo by a J&J research scientist who warned the company to be ready for litigation if the information became public. The case is Lanzo v. Cyprus Amex Minerals Co., L00738516, Middlesex Superior Court (New Brunswick).

Other Johnson & Johnson Mesothelioma Lawsuits in California

Another Los Angeles Superior Court jury this year awarded $25.75 million: $21.75 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. Jurors found Johnson & Johnson negligent and failed to warn consumers that its Baby Powder contained manufacturing and design defects because it contained asbestos. Joanne Anderson, age 66, filed the lawsuit after she was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The San Francisco Business Times reported that experts estimate she used the product more than 10,000 times. Medical testimony indicated that all of her exposures to asbestos contributed to cause her mesothelioma. A second case this year in the same court ended in a mistrial.

What is Talc?

“It’s a mineral…, A rock, you dig it from the ground” attorney Stuemke told the jury during open arguments at Weirick’s trial. He explained that a talc mine in Vermont provided J&J with talc that went into its baby powder for many years. It was turned from rock to powder by Imerys and then packaged and made into baby powder and cosmetics.

Stuemke showed the jury a slide that contained asbestos in baby powder ranging from 50 percent to 0.2 percent by weight that was submitted by Imerys to the federal government in 1964. “Talc is not as pure as people would like to think,” Stuemke said.

J&J’s attorney countered. Vejnoska said that J&J “constantly sampled” its talc products; that the company “went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that its products were not contaminated and to be sure that people could trust those products”, according to Courtroom View Network. He further stated that evidence would show cosmetic talc does not cause mesothelioma and that Johnson & Johnson products are not contaminated. Carolyn Weirick, age 59 and mother of four teenagers, believes otherwise.

If You’ve Received the Depuy Synthes Attune Knee Implant You May Be Entitled to a Lawsuit

Posted by | Dangerous Drugs & Devices | No Comments

Patients suffering from knee pain and joint stiffness will usually find themselves seeking knee replacement surgery when pain becomes unbearable. The Hospital for Special Surgery reports the average lifespan of a replacement knee joint is between 15 and 20 years. However, a recent knee implant recall has been issued for the Depuy Synthes Attune knee replacement system because of the high rate of early failure seen with this equipment. Those who are affected by a failure of the Depuy Attune equipment have the chance to join a class-action lawsuit designed to compensate them for their lost earnings and medical costs.

What to look for in a knee replacement failure

There are a number of ways a patient can identify the symptoms of a knee replacement failure. The first of which is continued pain and stiffness in the joint often accompanied by signs of a fever which leads to stiffness. The majority of those affected by a failure will see a loss of balance and mobility, making it difficult to stand for prolonged periods of time.

Signs of a failure of the Depuy Attune 

A knee implant failure owing to the problems seen in the Depuy system will be highlighted by pain and a loss of stability. The main issue for those who feel they may have been affected by this commonly seen failure is the fact they will see far reduced mobility once the implant begins to loosen from the lower leg bones. The problem with the Depuy system was identified by the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database, according to MassDevice. The published study showed failures in three hospitals were higher with Depuy than those seen with the use of other equipment. In most cases, the equipment fails and comes away from the lower leg bones resulting in a loss of mobility in those with a knee implant.

What to expect when a failure occurs

Most of those affected by a knee implant failure will face the problem of revision surgery to replace the existing installed equipment. A new surgery must take place with the installed Depuy Attune system removed from the body and replaced with a new piece of equipment. The knee implant recall results in surgery taking place as the high level of failure seen in Depuy systems makes it unsafe for them to remain installed.

Knee revision surgery is a difficult one to complete because it is more than likely the installed equipment will have become surrounded by the lower leg bone. Removing portions of the bone will leave a limited amount available for the new replacement knee to be attached to. A bone graft is usually required to make sure there is enough available to attach the new knee implant too. The newly designed equipment from Depuy is a vast improvement on the initial Attune and is a common replacement for the faulty equipment.

Why join a Depuy Attune lawsuit 

There are many reasons why an individual may wish to join the class action Depuy Attune lawsuit, including the fact the subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson failed to notify the FDA of changes to the design of its Attune equipment. The cost of medical care is high and revision surgery is being paid for as part of the compensation being sought for the Depuy knee implant recall. Compensation is the only recourse for those who wish to see justice served for their lost mobility and time.


Punitive damages to be decided in Philadelphia Risperdal cases

Posted by | Dangerous Drugs & Devices | No Comments

PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia judge’s decree has paved the way for new trials in two Risperdal cases, in order to determine the applicability of punitive damages in those same actions.

On Sept. 14, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold L. New, ruled in a pair of separate orders that the defense would not be granted summary judgment, and that the plaintiffs in Risperdal litigations Stange v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Murray v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals will have the opportunity to apply the laws of their home states to try and obtain punitive damages from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the developer of Risperdal and a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

Prior to Judge New’s recent order, a similar ruling was made in the Superior Court in January. Before that, the pursuit and application of punitive damages in Risperdal cases was prohibited according to New Jersey state law – because Johnson & Johnson is headquartered there. New previously agreed with that rationale, before his original ruling to bar punitive damages was reversed by the Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff counsel in the Philadelphia-based Risperdal litigation, Tom Kline of Kline & Specter in Philadelphia, indicated New’s order rendered last week was a pivotal decision in the mass tort series.

“We believe this is a tipping point in this litigation. We have always steadfastly and wholeheartedly believed that this is a punitive damages case and this ruling by Judge New is a welcome pathway forward to the plaintiffs obtaining a full measure of justice,” Kline said.

Janssen spokesperson Kelsey Buckholtz expressed disappointment in Judge New’s order, on behalf of the pharmaceutical company.

“We are disappointed in the Court’s ruling and are continuing to review our options going forward. Risperdal (risperidone) has helped and is still helping millions of patients with debilitating mental illnesses and neurodevelopmental conditions as part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” Buckholtz said.

The key development on the issue of punitive damages started with Johnson & Johnson’s appeal to the Superior Court of the verdict in the Stange v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals case, a lawsuit in which Wisconsin plaintiff Timothy Stange asserted an inadequate warning of developing gynecomastia from taking Risperdal.

Stange used the drug for three years during his childhood, for treatment of Tourette’s syndrome. At the conclusion of the trial in December 2015, a Philadelphia jury awarded Stange $500,000, and the January Superior Court ruling upheld his arguments that an inadequate warning of the gynecomastia risks directly caused his injuries. In Stange’s new trial, he can attempt to apply Wisconsin law to attempt to obtain punitive damages from Johnson & Johnson.

In the case of Murray v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, involving Maryland plaintiff Nicholas Murray, a jury decided the case in Murray’s favor in November 2015 and awarded him $1.75 million. The $1.75 million jury verdict represents damages for “disfigurement and mental anguish”, though it was later cut down to $680,000.

Murray was prescribed Risperdal at the age of nine in 2003, for off-label treatment of symptoms associated with his Asperger’s Syndrome. Like other plaintiffs who stepped forward, Murray also allegedly contracted gynecomastia as a result.

Plaintiff counsel aims to fight cap limits on punitive damages as part of the new trials.

Currently, 6,700 lawsuits based in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and its Complex Litigation Center – most from out-of-state plaintiffs – allege Risperdal causes young males to contract gynecomastia, or the development of female breast tissue, and that Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn of that side effect from the drug.

In addition to 6,700 Risperdal cases, the CLC has several other mass tort programs including cases over asbestos and Xarelto, and the percentage of claims belonging to out-of-state plaintiffs has traditionally been in the high 80s.

In 2016, the percentage for pharmaceutical lawsuits dropped to 74 percent.

In 2017, CLC stats show that figure jumped to an unprecedented 94 percent. Earlier this year, it was reported that figure showed a slight decrease, to 84 percent.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas cases 130401984 & 130401990

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at [email protected]


A Bale Of Hay And A Block Of Cheese: How Mark Lanier Won $4.7 Billion Talcum Powder Verdict

Posted by | Dangerous Drugs & Devices | No Comments

Partway through a trial over allegedly asbestos-tainted baby powder that ended with a $4.69 billion verdict against Johnson & Johnson in St. Louis earlier this year, attorney Mark Lanier whipped a knife from out of his pocket and held it over a large block of yellow cheese.

“You’ve got Bailiff Jim over there just looking for an excuse to shoot, so I looked at the judge and said `Am I allowed to do this?’” Lanier recalled at a recent meeting for mass tort trial lawyers. “`For now,’ the judge said.”

Lanier dug his knife into the cheese, providing a vivid visual cue for the jury about how talc is mined. And in the process, the boundary-testing Houston trial lawyer demonstrated that in the courtroom of Judge Rex Burlison, just about anything goes.

Lanier kept that block of cheese at the ready throughout the trial and used other simple props, including a bale of hay, a bathroom scale and drawings scribbled on overhead projector slides to convince the jury that J&J had failed to remove dangerous asbestos fibers from its iconic Johnson’s Baby Powder.

Over the objections of J&J’s attorneys, who maintain there is no asbestos in its products, Lanier convinced Burlison to allow in expert witnesses who used tests on old baby powder samples, many of them purchased from collectors on eBay, to suggest every bottle of the iconic product contains deadly asbestos fibers.

In the meeting of trial lawyers at a Napa Valley resort, Lanier likened himself to a magician and described his presentation as explaining “how I sawed the man in half.”

“Every judge lives by certain rules, just like in sports, but every stadium is also allowed to size themselves appropriately to the game,” Lanier said. “You figure out what the judge’s playing field is and use every bit of that territory.”

The July verdict on behalf of 22 victims of ovarian cancer and their families was the largest in a string of courtroom victories plaintiff lawyers have won against J&J, based on hotly disputed allegations that talcum powder contains asbestos fibers that can cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of the pleural lining that is usually associated with industrial exposure to asbestos.

St. Louis has become a favorite venue for these lawyers. In addition to the $4.7 billion verdict in July, juries there handed down verdicts against Johnson & Johnson of $55 million, $70 million and $72 million, although a Supreme Court decision limiting the power of out-of-state plaintiffs to sue in Missouri will shift many future cases to federal court.

Johnson & Johnson, in a Sept. 20 motion for retrial, said Lanier and his trial team used a number of deceptive and improper tactics to win the most recent verdict, including showing the jury a hand-drawn picture of a woman being pushed off a cliff by a figure labeled “J&J Asbestos Baby Powder.” The woman is identified as having several other risk factors, including the BRCA gene, which is associated with a sharply higher risk of ovarian cancer.

The implication of the slide, J&J complains, is that talcum powder is the factor that pushes the woman over the cliff, when in fact the known risk factors are far more likely to be the cause.

Lanier loves this sort of exhibit, however. He bragged to his audience about how he would place a overhead transparency sheet on top of a folder containing defense exhibits and scribble his own notes and diagrams, not-so-subtly displaying his contempt for the defense case. He drew a picture of a jukebox with the name of a defense witness and musical notes coming out of it, for example, to get across the point “you put a coin in and he will sing any song you want.”

“I’m a big believer in using real demonstratives to make a point,” Lanier said. “I’m a big believer in actually letting the jury see.”

One thing Lanier didn’t want the jury to see, J&J complains in its motion for retrial, was a sentence on his own law firm’s website stating asbestos-contaminated talc “is not used in modern consumer products.” The language disappeared midway through the trial, the company says, then in closing arguments Lanier told the jury he “looked at the web address” and it wasn’t there.

Other props Lanier used during the trial included a bale of hay to demonstrate the difficulty of finding tiny asbestos fibers in talcum powder, and a set of scales. He placed a needle on a bathroom scale to show the jury its weight didn’t register, then used a much more sensitive scale to show the weight was measurable if the proper technique was used. His point was that J&J hadn’t done everything it could to remove asbestos fibers from its products – even though J&J said there is no evidence they’re in its products in the first place.

All of the samples tested by the plaintiffs’ expert were supplied by law firms involved in the litigation, J&J says, and the only ones that the expert found contained asbestos fibers came from Lanier. Defense lawyers complained during trial that the plaintiff expert couldn’t identify his samples as having come from J&J and  suggested they may have been tampered with.

“If there are lawyers who are doing that kind of a stunt,” Lanier responded, “I hope they’d… put it into every stinking bottle and not only half of them.”

This sort of behavior has gotten Lanier in trouble before. In April the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a $151 million verdict he won against DePuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson, saying Lanier misrepresented to the jury that his witnesses weren’t compensated and introduced “inflammatory character evidence,” such as unrelated allegations the defendants had bribed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime and engaged in racial discrimination.

Lanier, who describes himself as an “author, teacher, pastor and expert story teller,” didn’t seem fazed by the Fifth Circuit’s criticism last April.

“We find it unfortunate the behavior of J&J was so bad, that reciting that behavior to a jury evidently prejudices the verdict; however, the court has not allowed that into evidence in the subsequent trials, and those resulted in larger awards,” he said then.



Top 40 Under 40 President Stephen Burg obtains $146K verdict for rear-end collision victim

Posted by | Automobile Accident | No Comments

National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 President Stephen Burg secured a verdict plus interest and costs of $146,000 for the victim of a rear end collision in Colorado. Burg says his client, David Jimenez-Santana was driving his pickup truck and was rear-ended by the defendant, Robert Baker in December 2014 in Grand Junction. Although there was no visible physical damage to the plaintiff’s truck, the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff had a prior worker’s compensation back injury to the same area injured. Burg reports Jimenez-Santana sustained a disc injury at L4-5, and had to undergo a discectomy at the L4-5. Burg says the verdict plus interest and costs was $146,532.67 and 18 times greater than the $7,500 defense offer. The verdict was handed down on June 8, 2018. Burg tried the case along with David Crough of Burg Simpson before Judge Kenneth Plotz. Burg is also a member of The National Trial Lawyers Top 100.

Case Name: David Jimenez-Santana v. Robert Baker

Case number: 17 CV 30484

Case Type: Jury Verdict

Verdict for: Plaintiff

Verdict Date: 06/08/2018

Amount: $83,788.76

Best offer from defense:$7,500

Area of Law: Personal Injury

Court: Grand Junction, Colorado



J&J’s Talc Appeal – Lack of Scientific Evidence and Jurisdiction Argument

Posted by | Dangerous Drugs & Devices | No Comments

Johnson & Johnson plans to appeal the $4.69 billion verdict to 22 women and their families, arguing insufficient scientific proof and jurisdiction.

St. Louis, MOJohnson & Johnson plans to appeal the $4.69 billion verdict awarded on July 12 to 22 women and their families who alleged that ovarian cancer cases was caused by asbestos in the company’s baby powder, and that J&J failed to warn that its talcum powder raised the risk of ovarian cancer. Experts say that J&J will argue the verdict based on insufficient scientific evidence and jurisdiction. And this asbestos-talc case is one of about 9,000 that J&J is facing.

The Science Argument

Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier successfully combined two theories in one case: he showed a connection between ovarian cancer and talc and that asbestos could cause something other than mesothelioma with regard to talc.

The Asbestos-Talc Theory

Plaintiffs, during this and former talc trials, have presented
studies and researchdating back to the 1970s showing that talcum powder contained asbestos and was linked to ovarian cancer. And women who developed ovarian cancer used J&J’s baby powder in the years when asbestos was an ingredient in talc. “There’s a lot of debate over whether the ovarian cancer is caused by the exposure to the talc, versus any other event, but it’s 100 percent certain that asbestos causes ovarian cancer,” said attorney Wendy Fleishman, whose firm is also representing plaintiffs. She also pointed out that earlier ovarian talc cancer lawsuits declined to bring cases on behalf of women over the age of 70 “because the overall increased cancer risk borne by women of that age made it difficult to clearly specify what caused their disease. The asbestos theory gives those plaintiffs a way forward, she said.

J&J said its scientific studies show talc itself is safe and never contained asbestos. Company spokesperson Carol Goodrich said that the company would pursue all available appellate remedies. J&J further stated that it has successfully overturned previous talc verdicts on technical legal grounds.

Reuters (July 12, 2018) reported that the FDA commissioned a study of various talc samples from 2009 to 2010, including J&J’s Baby Powder. No asbestos was found in any of the talc samples, the agency said. Lanier, however, told jurors during the trial that the agency and other laboratories and J&J have used flawed testing methods that did not allow for the proper detection of asbestos fibers.

The Jurisdiction Argument

J&J will also use jurisdiction to appeal this verdict. Because most of the 22 plaintiffs were not Missouri residents, the company will argue that they should not have been allowed to sue in St. Louis under a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that severely restricted state courts’ jurisdiction over injury lawsuits brought by non-residents against out-of-state companies. It had previously overturned talc verdicts in Missouri based on that decision.

But plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier countered, saying his team has “hundreds of pages of evidence” showing lobbying efforts and baby powder focus groups J&J conducted in the state. He added that 15 of his non-resident clients used a specific J&J talc-based product manufactured by Missouri-based contractor, according to Courtroom View Network. Elizabeth Burch, a law professor at the University of Georgia, said that even under the new Supreme Court guidance, the women’s claim that they used the specific product, if true, provided “a pretty strong link to Missouri.”

Failure to Warn

On Courtroom View Network, Lanier said that, “For over 40 years, Johnson & Johnson has covered up the evidence of asbestos in their products.” He told the jury during closing arguments that evidence shows how J&J had covered up testing data and scientific studies that it knew showed talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower contained asbestos.

In last year’s talc lawsuit, Echeverria said “decades of documents demonstrated that J&J knew of the ovarian cancer risk posed by genital use of talcum powder, and remained intimately involved in suppressing information relating to the link. Citing a 1964 document in which a manager of the company noted that talc “of course” was not “found to be absorbed safely in the vagina,” Echeverria argued that J&J should have been warning women ever since. The case is Elisha Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson et al., number B286283 in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District.

Unlike its competitors, Johnson & Johnson has not put a warning label on its talc, arguing that “such a label would be confusing, because although the company regularly expresses sympathy for these women, it vehemently denies that its powder has anything to do with their ovarian cancer,” according to CNN.
For instance, Assured’s Shower & Bath Absorbent Body Powder says that it is “intended for external use only” and adds, “Frequent application of talcum powder in the female genital area may increase the risk of ovarian cancer.”

This latest case is Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 1522-CC10417, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri.