In a significant legal victory, Johnson & Johnson emerges triumphant as a New Jersey court nullifies a $223 million jury award. This victory comes in the wake of the company’s failed endeavor to resolve lawsuits related to talc through bankruptcy tactics, compelling Johnson & Johnson to explore alternative strategies to address the over 30,000 claims it currently faces.
In this recent ruling, a New Jersey appeals court overturned a $223 million jury award that had been granted to four plaintiffs. These individuals had alleged that asbestos found in Johnson & Johnson’s iconic baby powder had been the cause of their cancer. The Superior Court determined that a lower court had erroneously permitted jurors to be exposed to the testimony provided by three scientific experts.
Originally, this substantial award had been established at $750 million back in 2020, but it was subsequently reduced by a judge who cited the state’s restrictions on punitive damages.
In May of the current year, Johnson & Johnson took legal action against one of the three experts, Dr. Jacqueline Miriam Moline of New York, arguing that her testimony was inaccurate. Additionally, the company initiated separate lawsuits against three other experts who had provided testimony in other cases linked to talc.
Erik Haas, J&J’s Chief Litigation Officer, expressed his thoughts on the decision, stating, “This marks the third time in three years that an appellate court has invalidated excessive verdicts secured by asbestos lawyers through confusing and misleading juries with unscientific opinions that promote groundless liability theories. The ruling rightly deals a blow to the improper strategy and baseless talc litigation employed by the asbestos bar.”
Notably, two years ago, due to improper expert testimony in a case involving a single plaintiff, a New Jersey court nullified a $117 million jury award that had been issued in 2018.
Due to persistent legal challenges, Johnson & Johnson has ceased the sale of talc-based baby powder, opting instead for a cornstarch version of the product.
Responding to Tuesday’s ruling, Jon Ruckdeschel, a mesothelioma trial lawyer based in Maryland, expressed his disappointment but played down its significance, saying, “Ultimately, the court simply ruled that the trial judge should have conducted a hearing on the challenges to the evidence raised by J&J. J&J’s attempt to portray the ruling as an indictment of the scientists who testified for the plaintiffs is, at best, imaginative. We fully anticipate that the evidence will be admissible in a retrial, and once again, J&J will be held accountable by the jury.”
Following Johnson & Johnson’s unsuccessful attempt to resolve a substantial number of talc-related cases through bankruptcy in July, the company has witnessed a rapid surge in the volume of lawsuits brought against it. According to a report, at least 11,000 cases have been filed in recent months.
