The jury that found that asbestos present in Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based powder products led to a man’s mesothelioma has awarded the plaintiff an additional $80 million in punitive damages.
New Jersey resident Stephen Lanzo claimed that his use of the company’s talc powders since his birth in 1972 resulted in long-term exposure to asbestos fibers. Now diagnosed with mesothelioma, Lanzo ...
continue reading...
Thousands of cases are pending against Johnson & Johnson across the country, as plaintiffs claim the world’s largest home health goods company’s talc products cause ovarian cancer. Juries have awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in cases that have already been decided, though recent appeals won by J&J have made their own waves through courts.
Still, scientific studies do appear to have found a definitive link between talc and ovarian cancer. One ...
continue reading...
This past August, a California jury passed down a $417 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson for failing to properly warn consumers about the dangers associated with its talc products. At the time of the ruling, a spokesperson for the corporation said J&J would challenge the penalty because “science supports the safety of” regular use of its products containing talc.
Now, the company has begun the appeal process for ...
continue reading...A St. Louis jury has rejected a woman’s case that claimed she contracted ovarian and uterine cancer because of long-term use of Johnson & Johnson talcum powder, according to U.S. News. The jury voted 11-1 against the plaintiff, Nora Daniels, who claimed to have used the product continually for three and a half decades.
Previous St. Louis juries had awarded nearly $200 million to plaintiffs in similar suits. ...
continue reading...Two New Jersey plaintiffs are seeking to reinstate their cases against Johnson & Johnson, claiming they developed ovarian cancer as a result of using the company’s Shower to Shower product line.
Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson initially threw out the cases of Diana Balderrama and Brandi Carl because he rejected the expert testimony presented on their behalf. In their appeal, the plaintiffs assert Judge Johnson “misapplied ...
continue reading...
