LA jury finds J&J liable for women's cancer in bellwether

A Los Angeles jury on Friday found Johnson & Johnson liable for two women's ovarian cancer, awarding $40 million in the first bellwether trial in California's coordinated proceedings over whether the company's talcum powder products caused the disease.

The jury did not find the company acted with malice or fraud and issued no punitive damages.

Non-economic damages totalled $40 million for the two women and the husband of one of them.

The verdict followed just one day of deliberation and four weeks of evidence presentation.

Robinson Calcagnie Inc. partner Daniel S. Robinson and Beasley Allen Law Firm principal Anthony D. Birchfield represented three individual plaintiffs at trial, which consisted of two women and one of their husbands.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP partners Allison M. Brown and Kuan Huang defended Johnson & Johnson.

"We're just so happy for our clients. They've been through a long process. .... I'm happy the jury got the right result," Robinson Calcagnie Inc. partner Daniel S. Robinson said in an interview outside the courtroom.

"We're truly all together," Robinson continued. "The jurors saw through a lot of false narratives to reach the right result. We're just proud of our team."

Robinson said the person who'd be most proud of Friday's verdict is his father, Mark P. Robinson Jr., founder of his firm. Robinson said he joined the coordinated talc cases after his father -- who helped litigate the only other ovarian cancer California trial against Johnson & Johnson in 2017 -- retired.

The jury was asked to decide whether Johnson & Johnson was negligent in designing, manufacturing and testing its baby- and body-powder products, and whether such negligence was a substantial factor in causing Deborah Schultz's and Monica Kent's ovarian cancer. The two women testified they used the products for decades and said the company failed to warn consumers with proper labeling.

The dispute centered on the company's baby powder and "Shower to Shower" body powder, both of which contained talc. In 2020, the company discontinued its talc-based powders and replaced them with cornstarch. In a news release, the company cited declining sales during the COVID-19 pandemic and what it called "misinformation" about the products' safety. Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases, JCCP4872 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 2, 2016).

Plaintiffs argued the trial evidence showed the company "concealed, confused and compromised" the scientific narrative around talc safety while continuing to market the products as "pure."

At trial, jurors saw internal documents and heard expert testimony that the plaintiffs' counsel called proof Johnson & Johnson knew talc sourcing carried unavoidable asbestos contamination and failed to provide regulators with complete testing data after the early 1970s. They also claimed the company resisted switching to cornstarch in 2000 to protect its baby powder as its core brand asset.

Johnson & Johnson's attorneys argued the plaintiffs' evidence did not prove there was a substantial link between talc and ovarian cancer, and that the claims were built on litigation driven theories unsupported by reliable science.

The company maintains that no treating physician testified that talc played a role in either of the plaintiffs' cancer, and that major public health authorities never identified cosmetic talc as a risk factor for the ovarian cancer Brown said was "rare." She also challenged the plaintiffs' migration theory and argued there is no study that shows externally applied talc can travel to the ovaries.

The case is part of nearly 10 years of consolidated litigation over Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder, which has generated thousands of lawsuits nationwide alleging asbestos contamination and increased cancer risk.

The only previous ovarian cancer talc trial to reach a California jury was brought in 2017 by Eva Echeverria. She won a $417 million verdict in Los Angeles County Superior Court after being granted an expedited trial due to declining health. She died before judgment was entered, and the verdict was later overturned on appeal.