This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/business/johnson-johnson-baby-powder-verdict.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Johnson & Johnson Loses Bid to Overturn a $4.7 Billion Baby Powder Verdict | Johnson & Johnson Loses Bid to Overturn a $4.7 Billion Baby Powder Verdict |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| Johnson & Johnson lost its motion on Wednesday to reverse a jury verdict that awarded $4.69 billion to women who blamed their ovarian cancer on asbestos in the company’s baby powder and other talc products. | Johnson & Johnson lost its motion on Wednesday to reverse a jury verdict that awarded $4.69 billion to women who blamed their ovarian cancer on asbestos in the company’s baby powder and other talc products. |
| The $4.14 billion in punitive damages and $550 million in compensatory damages, together one of the largest personal injury awards on record, was upheld by Judge Rex Burlison in a circuit court in Missouri. The plaintiffs — 22 women and their families — were the first to go to court against Johnson & Johnson claiming that their ovarian cancer was linked to asbestos contamination in the company’s talc. | The $4.14 billion in punitive damages and $550 million in compensatory damages, together one of the largest personal injury awards on record, was upheld by Judge Rex Burlison in a circuit court in Missouri. The plaintiffs — 22 women and their families — were the first to go to court against Johnson & Johnson claiming that their ovarian cancer was linked to asbestos contamination in the company’s talc. |
| Documents used in the case and reported last week by The New York Times and Reuters revealed that Johnson & Johnson has known for decades about the risk of asbestos contamination in its talc, but fought to keep negative information behind closed doors. The company’s stock fell 10 percent on Friday and has struggled to recover since, slipping again after Wednesday’s decision was posted. | |
| Mark Lanier, a lawyer for the women, said in a statement that his team was pleased with the order. Lawyers for Johnson & Johnson did not immediately comment. | |
| [Read more about how Baby Powder’s possible asbestos link worried Johnson & Johnson for years] | [Read more about how Baby Powder’s possible asbestos link worried Johnson & Johnson for years] |
| Alex Gorsky, the chief executive of Johnson & Johnson, told CNBC on Monday that, based on “thousands of studies,” the company “unequivocally” believes that its talc does not contain asbestos. The same day, the company announced a $5 billion stock buyback plan. It has taken out several full-page advertisements in newspapers, including The New York Times, reaffirming the safety of its products and directing consumers to its website, Facts About Talc. | |
| Until recently, the website had noted that “it’s easy to be swayed one way or another” when reading new studies or expert opinions. | |
| Johnson & Johnson faces nearly 12,000 plaintiffs in talc-related cases. Many have claimed, with mixed success, that talc particles caused their ovarian cancer. Others have said that asbestos in the talc caused mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of internal organs that is associated with asbestos. | Johnson & Johnson faces nearly 12,000 plaintiffs in talc-related cases. Many have claimed, with mixed success, that talc particles caused their ovarian cancer. Others have said that asbestos in the talc caused mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of internal organs that is associated with asbestos. |
| Johnson & Johnson has prevailed in some cases; others were declared mistrials. The company has appealed nearly all of the cases that have gone in the plaintiffs’ favor, except for one case where Johnson & Johnson was found negligent but not responsible for damages. The company has yet to pay out any awards to plaintiffs. | Johnson & Johnson has prevailed in some cases; others were declared mistrials. The company has appealed nearly all of the cases that have gone in the plaintiffs’ favor, except for one case where Johnson & Johnson was found negligent but not responsible for damages. The company has yet to pay out any awards to plaintiffs. |
| In the Missouri case, Johnson & Johnson asked Judge Burlison, who presided during the trial, that the jury verdict be thrown out on jurisdictional grounds and asked for separate trials for the plaintiffs, according to the order issued Wednesday. | |
| The judge wrote that “substantial evidence was adduced at trial of particularly reprehensible conduct” by Johnson & Johnson, including that the company “knew of the presence of asbestos in products that they knowingly targeted for sale to mothers and babies, knew of the damage their products caused, and misrepresented the safety of these products for decades.” |