fbpx

New Jersey Superior Court Delivers a Blow to J&J’s Talcum Powder Safety Claims

A three-judge panel in Johnson & Johnson’s home state of New Jersey declared two plaintiffs could present expert testimony in court -- evidence that supports claims the company’s signature Baby Powder contained cancer-causing asbestos. The New Jersey Superior Court passed down the decision on August 5, ending a lengthy debate regarding the validity of the testimony and its admissibility in trial and effectively reinstating the two women’s cases, clearing the way for over 1,000 similar cases against Johnson & Johnson in the state. The decision comes as a blow to Johnson & Johnson who is thought to have consolidated much of their Baby Powder litigation into New Jersey hoping for home-court advantage.

A lower court had previously ruled against allowing the testimony, describing it as “made-for-litigation.” The Superior Court panel found the lower court assessed the experts’ evidence in relation to his own understanding of science rather than evaluating the soundness of their methods and data in accordance with views of the scientific community.

Plaintiffs view this decision as a major victory towards uncovering Johnson & Johnson’s decades-long suppression of competing scientific evidence. According to The New Times, “Johnson & Johnson has often said that faulty testing, shoddy science and ill-equipped researchers are to blame for findings that its powder was contaminated with asbestos.”

The company pulled the product from the shelves in North America in May citing a slump in demand due to “misinformation about the product”, but they “remain confident that [their] talc is safe, asbestos free and does not cause cancer.” Consumers disagree, as Johnson and Johnson recently reported a 15% increase in lawsuits carrying them to more than 20,000 claims.

Articles referenced in this post:

J&J Stung by New Jersey Court Ruling Reviving Talc Cancer Claims

Johnson & Johnson’s talc phase-out seen as possible prelude to settling lawsuits

Expert Ruling Was 'Tipping Point' for J&J's Talc Withdrawal, Lawyers Say

J&J’s Baby Powder Switch Sets an End Date for Legal Liability

Johnson & Johnson aims to torpedo thousands of talc cases with one high-stakes hearing

Judge called asbestos testimony 'made-for-litigation,' but N.J. appeals court says it is good enough for courtroom

NJ Appeals Court Says Plaintiffs' Experts in J&J Talc Suits Met 'Accutane' Standard for Scientific Evidence


 

 Credo Watch asks the question: With more than 90,000 product liability claims, does Johnson & Johnson still deserve the reputation it earned in the mid-twentieth century? And does Johnson & Johnson still adhere to its famous Credo established in 1943?

All articles posted on CredoWatch.com are provided as public information, and they are free to be republished in part or in whole with or without attribution.