Twenty-two women who brought claims against Johnsons & Johnson in St. Louis Court alleging that talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer were vindicated yesterday after a jury who heard all the evidence came up with a $4.7 Billion Dollar verdict. This comes with a string of verdicts against Johnson & Johnson who are perplexed how come neutral juries who keep evaluating all the evidence keep finding there is a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.
Johnson & Johnson has attributed the verdicts to bad science and experts but trial attorney Jason T. Brown commented, “Time and time again when juries are presented the evidence they see through the charade that Johnson & Johnson is putting forth. To blame the experts is insulting to the multiple juries who have heard this case and equally insulting to Johnson & Johnson’s own experts who are some of the best that money can buy. The juries simply don’t believe Johnson & Johnson.” Mr. Brown points out that he was not on this trial team, but his firm does represent other women who had long term talcum powder usage and were diagnosed with ovarian cancer.
J & J will have a lot to digest and to discuss with its board as a billion dollar verdict sends a message. Even a pharmaceutical giant like Johnson & Johnson can not afford to withstand billion dollar verdicts with another 9,000 ovarian talcum victims waiting in the wings for their day in Court. Talcum Lawyer Jason T. Brown stated, “If there were a different mass tort and different defendant, they would have tried to figure out a way to pay all the woman they’ve harmed, but this is their flagship product and they want to keep fighting to beat down the woman who have already suffered so much.” He also went on to say that while he thinks parts of the verdict will be sustained on appeal, he thinks it’s likely that the dollar amount will be remitted or reduced on appeal.
There is another docket of talcum cases in the District of New Jersey consolidated as a mass tort. There have been no talcum trials or talcum verdicts in that docket.