Supreme Court rejects J&J’s appeal of $2B cancer verdict

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to listen to Johnson & Johnson’s bid to overturn a $2.1 billion verdict in opposition to it in favor of ladies who stated the corporate’s talc merchandise comprise asbestos and may trigger ovarian cancer.

Without remark, the justices turned away J&J’s appeal, leaving in place a Missouri state courtroom ruling that favored ladies who blamed their ovarian cancer on the corporate’s talc-based merchandise like child powder. 

The lawsuit is one of many filed on behalf of hundreds of ladies who declare J&J’s talc-based merchandise like child powder contributed to their ovarian cancer. Other fits have claimed that the merchandise induced mesothelioma. 

“This was a victory not just for the amazing women and their families who we were privileged to represent, but a victory for justice,” Mark Lanier, the ladies’s lawyer, advised The Post. “This result is exactly what separates America from the rest of the world. This decision sends a clear message to the rich and powerful: You will be held to account when you cause grievous harm under our system of equal justice under law.”

Deane Berg
Deane Berg survived the ovarian cancer she allegedly obtained from a female hygiene product produced by Johnson & Johnson containing talc.

After a six-week trial in St. Louis Circuit Court in 2018, a jury awarded $4.7 billion to 22 ladies who used J&J talc merchandise and developed ovarian cancer.

Circuit Judge Rex Burlison later wrote that proof introduced on the trial confirmed “particularly reprehensible conduct” on the half of the defendants.

Burlison wrote that “defendants knew of the presence of asbestos in products that they knowingly targeted for sale to mothers and babies, knew of the damage their products caused, and misrepresented the safety of these products for decades.”

Mark Lanier
Mark Lanier referred to as the choice to reject J&J’s appeal “a victory for justice.”
AFP by way of Getty Images

J&J appealed the jury verdict, and final 12 months a Missouri appeals courtroom rejected the corporate’s request to throw out the ruling however did reduce the verdict to about $2.1 billion as a result of some of the ladies have been from out of state.

The firm argued it shouldn’t have been compelled to defend itself in a single trial in opposition to claims by ladies from numerous states, backgrounds and histories of utilizing J&J talc-based merchandise.

“The decision by the Court to not review the Ingham case leaves unresolved significant legal questions that state and federal courts will continue to face on issues related to due process rights and personal jurisdiction,” a J&J spokesperson stated. “The Supreme Court has many times said that its decision to deny hearing a case expresses no view on the merits whatsoever, and we continue to believe that our view of the law and the facts will ultimately prevail.”

Johnson and Johnson's baby powder
The firm has stopped promoting its talc-based child powder within the US and Canada.
AFP by way of Getty Images

“The matters that were before the court are related to legal procedure, and not safety,” the spokesperson added.

The firm has denied that its merchandise might be linked to cancer, although it announced last year it would stop selling its talc-based child powder within the US and Canada. 

It stated on the time that the choice to discontinue the product was on account of falling demand “fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising.”

Last 12 months, a US-led evaluation of 250,000 ladies discovered no robust proof linking child powder with ovarian cancer, although the examine’s lead creator referred to as the outcomes “very ambiguous.”

An editorial revealed in January 2020 within the Journal of the American Medical Association referred to as the findings “overall reassuring.” The examine wasn’t definitive however conclusive analysis in all probability isn’t possible on account of a drop in ladies utilizing the merchandise, the editorial stated.

With Post wires

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.