J&J urged to issue cancer warning label after jury verdict in talc asbestos cancer case
By Margaret Cronin Fisk - May 25th, 14:53
Jurors weighing how to punish Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit asked a judge if they could force the company to warn consumers that its Johnson’s Baby Powder could be contaminated with asbestos, according to the law firm that won the case against the health-care giant.
After the judge declined, the jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages to Joanne Anderson, a 68-year-old woman who claimed her deadly cancer was caused by asbestos in J&J’s baby powder. A day earlier the jury had awarded $21.7 million to Anderson, finding J&J 67 percent responsible for her mesothelioma.
The court wouldn’t have the power to order a company to add or change warnings on its products, said David Logan, law professor at Roger Williams University in Bristol, Rhode Island. “It’s not a remedy that can be ordered in a damages action,’’ he said.
The fact that the jury asked the question at all, however, “is a bad sign for J&J," said law professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond in Virginia. “That should make J&J wake up if that’s the way juries are looking at these cases."
J&J is facing thousands of lawsuits alleging its talc products are connected to cancer, primarily ovarian, but with a growing number claiming asbestos-related mesothelioma. The suits centre on the claim that the company failed to warn of risks.
“It helps the plaintiffs’ cases if jurors are taking that kind of perspective," said Tobias. The jurors in Anderson, he said, “believe it needs a warning.’’
Carol Goodrich, a spokeswoman for J&J, didn’t immediately comment on the juror question. J&J talc products don’t contain asbestos or cause mesothelioma, she said after the verdict. The company has also rejected any connection between its talc products and ovarian cancer. J&J will appeal.
The jury query was highlighted in the press release issued by Anderson’s lawyers at Simon Greenstone Panatier. “The question shows that the jury understood that J&J knew about the danger of asbestos in their baby powder and chose to do nothing," David Greenstone, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Thursday in an email.
After the verdict, jurors outside the courtroom cited a 1969 company document related to “project code 101,” in which J&J doctors warned of the risk of asbestos in talc, and possible litigation in the future.
One juror who asked not to be identified said the evidence showed that J&J knew it had a problem in 1969 and kept marketing its baby powder. He said he advocated for a bigger damages award.
The case is Anderson v. Borg Warner Corp., BC 666513, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (West Covina).Bloomberg
Walmart faces $2bn lawsuit over use of food waste technology
03/08/2018 - 14:39
Walmart is facing a $2 billion lawsuit over technology that tracks the freshness of perishable produce and aims to reduce the amount of wastage in its US stores.
Johnson & Johnson to pay over $4.69bn in talc cancer case
13/07/2018 - 14:43
Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay out $4.69 billion in damages in a lawsuit representing 22 women and their families who alleged a talc sold by the company contained asbestos and caused them to suffer cancer.
J&J raises full-year profit forecast on quarterly earnings
19/07/2017 - 13:42
On Tuesday, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) raised its full-year profit forecast and reported better-than-expected quarterly earnings, helped by strong demand for its newer products.
J&J ordered to pay $110 million in U.S. talc-powder trial
05/05/2017 - 11:50
Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a Missouri jury to pay over $110 million to a Virginia woman who says she developed ovarian cancer after decades of using of its talc-based products for feminine hygiene.
US: Johnson & Johnson tops estimates as prescription, OTC drugs shine
18/04/2013 - 11:21
(Reuters) - Johnson & Johnson beat Wall Street's quarterly profit estimates on sharply lower taxes, strong sales of prescription drugs and a revival of over-the-counter medicines that had been recalled over quality control problems.