Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) Wins Major Court Victory In Talc Cancer Case

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) Wins Major Court Victory In Talc Cancer Case

A California judge last week tossed out an earlier $417 million verdict against the healthcare giant, in an important case brought against J&J by a woman claiming that long-term use of talc-based powder caused her to contract ovarian cancer. As a result, the judge said the original trial resulted in excessive damages.

The decision followed a jury's decision in August to hit J&J with the largest verdict to date in the litigation, awarding California resident Eva Echeverria $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages.

"Ovarian cancer is a devastating disease - but it is not caused by the cosmetic-grade talc we have used in Johnson's Baby Powder for decades". "Clear and convincing evidence of malice is lacking".

Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about talcum powder's potential cancer risks. "We will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this risky product", said Mark Robinson, a member of Echeverria's representation.

In a release, the company has said to be satisfied with the decision of Friday, according to the Agency Bloomberg. "The science is clear and we will continue to defend the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder as we prepare for additional trials in the USA", spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement. While then woman's lawyer has said that they would be filing an appeal against the court's ruling, the company issued a statement saying that it will continue to defend itself in any of the trials that come its way. On Tuesday, October 17, 2017, the State's appeals court for the Eastern District threw out a $72 million verdict rendered in the case of Jacqueline Fox, who died from cancer-related complications in 2015. (The plaintiff, in that case, was a woman from Alabama who died but the case was tried in Missouri raising questions over jurisdiction).

The court noted that the trial court's verdict had numerous errors and was based on evidence that has now been termed as "insufficient".

But this is just one of the claims that the company is facing.



Otras noticias