Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson

Consumer Protection

Los Angeles County

Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson

Plaintiff’s Lawyers: Mark P. Robinson Jr., Kevin F. Calcagnie, Scot D. Wilson, Cynthia L. Garber, Robinson Calcagnie Inc.; Allen Smith, Smith Law Firm PLLC, Helen Zukin, Kiesel Law LLP; Michelle A. Parfitt, Ashcraft & Gerel LLP; David P. Dearing, Beasley Allen Law Firm

Defense Lawyers: Bart H. Williams, Manuel F. Cachán, Proskauer Rose LLP; Kimberly A. Dunne, Sidley Austin LLP

Heads turned last summer when Mark Robinson secured a $417 million jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson for a woman who claimed chronic use of the company’s baby powder led to her developing ovarian cancer.

But the roller-coaster took a steep dive for the plaintiff’s attorneys when the judge in the bellwether trial, Maren Nelson, fundamentally rejected the science surrounding the toxicity of talc on the ovaries and granted defense motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

“I thought the trial was hard-fought and the lawyers on both sides worked hard. The judge worked hard,” said Robinson, who declined to discuss details about the pending case.

Robinson sued on behalf of 63-year-old Eva Echeverria, who said she developed ovarian cancer after using the powder daily in the perineal area for about 40 years. She was granted an expedited trial and died a couple weeks after the verdict.

Robinson and his team sought to show the jury that Johnson & Johnson knew of a talc problem, pointing to internal company documents dating back to the 1960s acknowledging the issue.

They also said studies showed talc use likely causes cancer, although the defense criticized the veracity of the science.

Robinson’s opponents included Proskauer Rose LLP’s Bart Williams and Manuel Cachán, as well as Kimberly Dunne of Sidley Austin LLP. They argued the plaintiff’s case was premised on junk science.

Following a seven-week trial, the jury found that the pharmaceutical company knew its talc contained a health risk and awarded the plaintiff $70 million in economic damages and $347 million in punitive damages.

But in throwing out the verdict, the judge said the company could not be held liable for failing to warn consumers dating back to the 1960s because there was no evidence it knew that talc likely caused cancer. The judge said the verdict was still out in the scientific community as to whether talc is harmful.

Now Robinson prepares for the next phase of battle: preparing briefs for an appeal before the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

— Justin Kloczko