Jury Clears Johnson & Johnson in Talc Asbestos Case; J&J Settles 3 Other Cases


A brand new jersey jury on wednesday cleared johnson & johnson of legal responsibility in a lawsuit delivered by means of a man who said that asbestos within the employer’s talcum powder products caused his mesothelioma.

The jury delivered its unanimous verdict in middlesex county superior courtroom in new brunswick, just miles from j&j’s headquarters, inside the case of plaintiff ricardo rimondi.
J&j, which faces some 13,000 talc-related lawsuits national, denies that its talc causes cancer, saying severa studies and exams through regulators international have shown its talc to be safe and asbestos-loose.

Johnson & johnson on wednesday also settled three different mesothelioma talc instances pending in state courts in california, oklahoma and ny, chris panatier, a legal professional for the plaintiffs, informed reuters.

Panatier declined to offer in addition information, mentioning confidentiality agreements.

Addressing the settlements, j&j in a assertion stated, “there are one-off situations in which agreement is affordable.”

J&j stated it stood by way of the safety of its talc and could preserve to vigorously shield the safety of baby powder.

“we do no longer have any prepared application to settle johnson’s child powder cases, nor are we planning a agreement software,” the corporation stated.

Referring to the rimondi verdict, j&j said the organization’s tune document in the talc litigation underscored “the decades of clinical evidence and medical research via medical experts round the world” helping the safety of johnson’s baby powder.

J&j shares, which had been down barely, turned high-quality after the jury verdict was announced and closed up thirteen cents at $138.70.

Legal professionals for the 58-12 months old rimondi could not be reached for remark.

Rimondi in 2016 turned into diagnosed with mesothelioma, a kind of most cancers that has been related to asbestos exposure.

He and his spouse sued j&j in 2017. They alleged that rimondi’s lifetime publicity to johnson’s toddler powder and shower to bathe, any other powder product containing talc offered by way of j&j within the past, induced his disease.

The jury again its verdict in want of the organisation after simply 1/2 an hour of deliberations, in step with a livestream of the court cases by court view community.

Other trials
The healthcare conglomerate thus far has faced 12 trials by means of plaintiffs claiming asbestos in talc caused their mesothelioma.

J&j has now been cleared of liability in four trials, with another 5 ensuing in hung juries and mistrials. Three juries have observed j&j in charge, awarding a complete of $172 million in damages. J&j is attractive those verdicts.

Most people of the 13,000 talc lawsuits in opposition to the corporation contain ovarian cancer claims. Juries in the ones cases have hit the organisation with verdicts as excessive as $4.69 billion. A number of the ovarian cancer verdicts had been overturned on enchantment on technical felony grounds, at the same time as the company’s different appeals are still pending.

“it stays genuine that of all of the talc-related verdicts in opposition to johnson & johnson which have been thru the appeals procedure, each one has been overturned,” the corporation said in its assertion on wednesday.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have greater these days targeted on arguing that asbestos contamination in talc induced ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

Reuters in december posted a file detailing that the organisation knew that the talc in its raw and finished powders from time to time examined superb for small quantities of asbestos from the Seventies into the early 2000s – test consequences the corporation did not disclose to regulators or consumers.

J&j denies the findings of the reuters document, which it describes as erroneous and misleading. In emphasizing the safety of its baby powder, the employer says that repeated checks of the powder by no means located asbestos and that it has cooperated absolutely and overtly with the u.S. Food and drug administration and other global regulators.

Legal warning !
The information, comments and suggestions there are not covered by investment advice. It is based on the author's personal opinions. These views may not fit your financial situation and risk and return preferences. For this reason, based solely on this information, investment decisions may not have the appropriate consequences for your expectation. Our Site is not responsible for any direct or indirect damages incurred by the investors as a result of the use of the information on the Site, deficiencies in the sources, damages incurred by profit, moral damages, or damage to third parties.