Talcum Powder Litigation Report
Hot on the heels of separate $72 million and $55 million verdicts entered against Johnson & Johnson defendants, HarrisMartin has launched this Talcum Powder Litigation Report, an online-only resource dedicated solely to news on talc-based powder ovarian cancer claims.
SEARCH THE ARCHIVES
Briefing is complete in the appeal of a New Jersey state court order that dismissed talcum powder claims, which the plaintiffs say was erroneous because it “substituted its own judgment for that of the scientists and usurped the role of the jury by holding what was in effect a bench trial on the issue of causation.”
Testimony is still being presented on behalf of the fifth Missouri plaintiff to present her claims to a jury, with the plaintiff having recently called Dr. Graham Colditz and David Steinberg to testify on her behalf, sources told HarrisMartin.
Counsel for the plaintiffs involved in California’s coordinated talcum powder docket have asked the court to limit complex case fees in the cases, arguing that they have already filed more in complex fees than the total amount required.
Talcum Powder Plaintiff Whose Claims Were Rejected by Jury Accuses J&J of Incomplete Document Production
A talcum powder plaintiff whose claims were the first to be rejected by a Missouri jury has moved to vacate the judgment entered in favor of the defendants, accusing Johnson & Johnson of “woefully incomplete” document production.
Johnson & Johnson defendants and Imerys Talc America have opposed recent plaintiff efforts to try the claims of five plaintiffs during the June 2017 trial setting, filing a response and accompanying exhibits under seal.
Plaintiffs who were awarded $72 million in the first talcum powder case to proceed to trial in Missouri state court have defended expert testimony proffered on their behalf during the trial, maintaining that the expert is a “highly regarded epidemiologist and a practicing internist specializing in women’s health issues.”
A jury has been selected in what will be the fifth talcum powder case to proceed to trial in Missouri state court, with opening statements slated to begin at 9 a.m. on April 11, sources confirmed to HarrisMartin Publishing.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied motions by five talcum powder plaintiffs to vacate conditional transfer orders entered in the cases, reiterating that jurisdictional challenges “generally do not present an impediment to transfer.”
Fla. Court Remands Asbestos Action Involving Talcum Powder Products, Says Removing Defendant Failed to Prove Fraudulent Joinder
A Florida federal court has remanded a lawsuit alleging exposure to asbestos in talcum powder products, concluding that the plaintiffs had asserted allegations that non-diverse defendant Publix Super Markets Inc. should have known that the products it sold were dangerous.
Parties involved in California’s coordinated pretrial docket for talcum powder personal injury claims have exchanged briefing on the scope of discovery, with the plaintiffs asking the court to limit discovery to 10 years predating the cancer diagnosis, while the defendants maintained that no limit should be placed on discovery.