Johnson & Johnson has been facing a series of lawsuits. This stems from the fact that people have complained of the cancer-related cases emerging from the use of the talc-based products offered by the company, one such product is the Johnson’s Baby Powder. In fact, J&J admits that it faces about 4,800 such cases nationally.

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court set a limit on the jurisdiction of a state court on injury lawsuits. According to the ruling, state courts have no jurisdiction over injuries that did not occur in the state and also when the defendant is not based in the particular state. The Supreme Court made this ruling in a case which involved Bristol Myers Squibb.

The Supreme Court ruling affected several rulings made earlier by state courts. One of these rulings was the one made by St. Louis’ state court. 65 plaintiffs had filed a case against Johnson & Johnson due to injuries that resulted from the use of the company’s talc-based products.

One of the plaintiffs was the family of a woman, Jacqueline Fox, who had died of ovarian cancer in 2015. She allegedly had developed the condition as a result of using Johnson & Johnson’s Shower to Shower and Baby Powder for 35 years. However, the firm had sold out Shower to bathe to the pharmaceutical company Valeant in 2012.

The state court of St. Louis found the cosmetic products’ company guilty of not providing adequate information to its consumers on the risks of using its products. As a result, the users were exposed to cancer-causing agents without their knowledge as was in Fox’s case.

After the proof of liability, the jury awarded a total of $72 million in favor of Fox’s family. $62 million of the sum was for punitive damages and $10 million for compensatory damages. The verdict was followed by three other awards by the court against the firm that totaled to $235 million.

Reversal of ruling

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Johnson & Johnson filed an appeal at the Missouri Court of Appeal seeking the reversal of the ruling given Jacqueline was a resident of Alabama. The Missouri court in their ruling pointed out that it was out of order for the case to be filed, heard and determined in St. Louis. Besides, only two of the 65 plaintiffs are residents of Missouri. It consequently reversed the $72 million award.

Judge Lisa van Amburg pointed out in her ruling that the Supreme Court’s decision is applicable even if the plaintiff received the same injuries as other resident plaintiffs.

J&J is currently facing similar lawsuits from about 4800 plaintiffs. The lawyers of the company and the plaintiff were not available immediately for comments.

A California jury on Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million to an ailing woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer after using the company’s talc-based baby powder for feminine hygiene.

The verdict in the lawsuit filed by the California woman, Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts around the U.S.

The verdict included $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages. It was a significant setback for J & J, which already faces 4,800 similar claims nationally. Echeverria’s lawsuit was the first out of many of California talc cases to go to trial. Relative to Echeverria’s case, more than 1000 other people have similar lawsuits. Some who won their lawsuits won much lower amounts.

The ruling came after five other cases in Missouri state court, where many other lawsuits are pending. The Missouri cases, which have largely originated from out-of-state plaintiffs, have faced jurisdictional questions after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in June that limited where personal injury lawsuits can be filed.

Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to warn consumers regarding talcum powder’s potential cancer risks. She used the product regularly starting in the 1950’s until 2016. She was however diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007.
The California woman hoped that her case would prompt J & J to put additional warnings on its products. Her intention lay mostly on assisting other women throughout the whole country that have ovarian cancer out of using Johnson & Johnson for two or three decades.

J & J’s lawyers and spokeswoman Carol Goodrich countered that studies and federal agencies have not found that talc products are carcinogenic.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2006 classified talcum powder as a probable human carcinogen if used in the female genital area, but no federal agencies have taken any action to remove talcum powder from the consumer market.
Johnson & Johnson has had many warning bells over a 30 year period but has failed to warn women when buying the famous Johnson’s baby powder.

The case is Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson, BC628228, Los Angeles County Superior Court.