Johnson & Johnson is seeking a Supreme Court review of the $ 2 billion verdict in favor of women who claim to have developed ovarian cancer from the use of its talc products.
The proceedings are attended by a number of well-known lawyers with unusual alliances, including former independent lawyer Ken Starr, who represents the woman who sued Johnson & Johnson. The judge’s father also appears because the largest corporate group in the United States supports the company and has been associated with a cosmetics and personal care product trading group for many years.
The court may also decide on Tuesday whether it will be involved.
Fundamentally, Johnson & Johnson claims that the company did not receive a fair ruling in a Missouri state court trial.I agree with 22 women who have developed ovarian cancer using talc products.
The state Court of Appeals reduced more than half of the money from the ruling and excluded two of the plaintiffs, but otherwise, whether the company’s talc products contained asbestos and asbestos in asbestos. , Both lawyers upheld the outcome of the trial disputing expert testimony. Talc can cause ovarian cancer.
The jury found the woman in both respects, after which Judge Rex M. Burlison wrote that the evidence in the trial showed “a particularly blameful act on the part of the defendant.”
The evidence written by Burrison is that the companyProducts aimed at mothers and babies contain asbestos, are aware of the potential harm, and “misrepresented the safety of these products for decades.”
Nine of the women have died of ovarian cancer, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Can Talc Powder Cause Cancer?
Johnson & JohnsonThe company’s talc products cause cancer, and a Missouri court ruling states that “Johnson’s baby powder has been independent for decades to ensure it is safe, asbestos-free, and non-cancer-causing. It contradicts scientific evaluation. “The company also manufactures one of three COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the United States.
Thousands of Americans suffer from health concerns about talcum powderAccording to a woman who claims that asbestos in the powder caused cancer. Talc is a mineral similar in structure to asbestos, which is known to cause cancer, and may be mined from the same mine. In 1976, the cosmetics industry agreed to ensure that talc products do not contain detectable amounts of asbestos.
Last year, led by the U.S. government analysis The lead author of the study described the results as “very vague,” but of the 250,000 women, the largest analysis to consider this question found strong evidence linking baby powder to ovarian cancer. There wasn’t.
The findings were “overall encouraging” in an editorial published with the study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in January 2020. This study was not definitive, but a more definitive study is probably not feasible as the number of women using powders for personal hygiene is decreasing.
A few months later, the company announced:The iconic talc-based Johnsons Baby Powder from the United States and Canada cites a decline in demand due to false alarms about health concerns.
The pending link between Gunn and Talc is not really part of the High Court proceedings. Instead, the company is forced to defend itself in a single trial against claims from women in 12 states with different backgrounds and different uses of Johnson & Johnson products, including talc. Said it shouldn’t be.
The $ 1.6 billion punitive damages are out of scope and should be reduced, the company also wrote in Washington state lawyer Neil Katial, who works with progressive causes and represents corporate clients. In his summary, Katil, who acted as the top lawyer for the Supreme Court during the Obama administration, refused a record interview.
Business organizations that support Johnson & Johnson’s complaint include the American Chamber of Commerce and Industry, manufacturers, insurance companies, and industry associations in the pharmaceutical industry.
Tiger Joyce, chairman of the American Tort Reform Association, describes how long it took judges to read the jury’s instructions as an indication of how unfair the trial was for Johnson & Johnson. It pointed out.
“If the defendant is facing a case where it takes more than five hours for the judge to read the jury’s instructions to the jury, we need to ask ourselves what we are doing here.” Said Joyce ..
Lawyer: J & J’s “easy-to-understand” behavior
In an interview with the Associated Press, Star said that none of Johnson & Johnson’s legal claims were worth court time. “As the jury decided and all judges who reviewed the six-week trial record concluded, Johnson & Johnson’s decades of conduct should be condemned,” Star said. Stated.
In addition to the stars, other members of the women’s law team are former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Washington lawyers David Frederick and Tom Goldstein, who are frequent lawyers in the Supreme Court.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh worked for the star when investigating the affair between President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky that led to President Clinton’s bullet each.
Another name that appears in several documents in this case is E. Edward Kavanaugh, a longtime president of the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrances Association and father of justice.
Kavanaugh’s group has endeavored to list talc as a carcinogen and to label talc products with warning labels. Mr. Kavanaugh has retired and the group is now known as the Personal Care Product Council.
Ethicists contacted by the AP said they saw nothing justifying the judiciary’s need to withdraw the proceedings.
Already, one justice is almost certainly not involved. Judge Samuel Alito reported last year that he owned $ 15,000 to $ 50,000 in Johnson & Johnson shares. Federal law prohibits judges from participating in cases of financial interest.
Johnson & Johnson Calls on Supreme Court to Invalidate $ 2 Billion Talc Decision
Source link Johnson & Johnson Calls on Supreme Court to Invalidate $ 2 Billion Talc Decision