Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $4.7 billion talcum products verdict

  • Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $4.7 billion talcum products verdict

Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $4.7 billion talcum products verdict

The women claim that either the talc caused ovarian cancer or that the product's talc led to mesothelioma.

The company, which plans to appeal the verdict, said it was "deeply disappointed" with the decision.

The company said its talc does not contain asbestos or cause ovarian cancer, and vowed it would 'pursue all available appellate remedies'. It's the largest verdict against the company that has sold Baby Powder and Shower to Shower brand talcum powder for decades.

"We would therefore generally advise against using talcum powder on this area of the body".

Lawyers frequently talk about big jury awards - and they frequently note that St. Louis is one such location where big jury awards happen with frequency. "It's outrageous the games and the tricks that they would go to", Lanier said.

'The company should pull talc from the market before causing further anguish, harm, and death from a awful disease'.

Mark Lanier, the lawyer for the women, in a statement following the verdict called on J&J to pull its talc products from the market "before causing further anguish, harm, and death from a awful disease".

Johnson & Johnson denied that its talc products cause cancer and that they ever contained asbestos. "The company should pull talc from the market before causing further anguish, harm, and death from a awful disease".

After a six-week trial, the jury in St Louis deliberated over the compensatory damages for eight hours but decided on the punitive damages in roughly 45 minutes, said Mark Lanier, a lawyer for the women. J&J spokeswoman Carol Goodrich in a statement to the press decried the way the case was tried, saying the decision to consolidate the case with 22 plaintiffs was "fundamentally unfair".

The result, "which awarded the exact same amounts to all plaintiffs irrespective of their individual facts, and differences in applicable law, reflects that the evidence in the case was simply overwhelmed by the prejudice of this type of proceeding", Goodrich added.

Talc is a mineral used in cosmetics and personal-care products, McGinley reported.

According to the American Cancer Society, the science on whether talcum causes cancer is still unclear.

"While the relative increase of a third suggested by some studies sounds significant, the absolute risk of getting ovarian cancer still remains very low".

"For someone without a family history of ovarian cancer the lifetime risk of developing the disease is two percent".

"Given evidence is inconsistent we do advocate a "better safe than sorry" attitude and advise that women using talc on their genitals stop doing so". In the early 1970s, scientists discovered talc particles in ovarian tumors. "More research is needed to work out what role, if any, talc use plays in ovarian cancer". Still, this is a huge win for both the women defendants and others who claim adverse effects from the company's product.

Of the 22 women represented in the case, six have died from ovarian cancer.

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". People without a serious disease may be less motivated to remember details.