Judge Denies Johnson’s


Mariah Ona, News Editor

Recently there has been lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson’s due to talcum powder found within their baby powder linked to causing ovarian cancer due to the asbestos. This recent  correlation has put a major setback on Johnson’s & Johnson’s costing them 4.7 billion dollars awarded to 22 different women.

J&J previously to the trial willingly had recalled a batch of 33,000 supposedly asbestos infested baby powder.  They claimed that the batch of baby powder was tested and results came back negative in alleged correlation with causing ovarian cancer.  However,  Judge Freda Wolfson has denied the Johnson’s claim of calling the plaintiff’s evidence ”junk science.

”Wolfson’s ruling found the experts against Johnson’s had “used reliable methodology and their opinions are substantially supported by the science.”

This is the first ruling that has been based on science due to the accuracy. This has put the company in potentially 16,000 lawsuits.

However, this does not mean that previously denied cases will be reviewed in favor of the plaintiff. Three Years ago Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson dropped a $417 million talc verdict due to the fact the case is ongoing and there is no consistent evidence provided by either side. This still remains true until each case is settled or both absolute and consistent evidence is proven in favor of a single side.

9 months previous to the date of the Daubert ruling Wolfson held a week-long trial regarding talc allegations.  She found that of 39 expert witnesses only eight had verified evidence.  5 in favor of the women 3 in favor of J&J.

Judge Wolfson spoke out saying that despite the confirmed evidence of one case, “This does not foreclose the possibility that the parties may seek leave from the court to supplement an expert’s report based on any new and relevant studies,” she added, and might “amend my rulings at a later time.”

Judge Wolfson’s ruling will potentially call for a “Battle of the Experts” since the ruling cannot be determined without reliable science.

However, until then you might be better off without the baby powder and instead try cornstarch.’


Sources gathered by Law.com