Orrick beats $25M plaintiff’s suit over Johnson & Johnson talc

Two weeks after winning a $40 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson in Los Angeles County, a Dallas-based firm lost a retrial Wednesday over whether the pharmaceutical company's talc products caused a woman's cancer, with an Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP partner crediting the defense win to the jury's attention to the science.

The Wednesday verdict in Los Angeles County Superior Court breaks up a string of victories by Simon Greenstone Panatier PC of Texas, which has extracted $103 million over three trials related to talc-lung cancer litigation dating back to last year.

John Ewald, a New York-based Orrick partner leading the Johnson & Johnson defense, argued no epidemiological studies found a talc-cancer link, defeating a plaintiff's case that sought at least $25 million.

"We presented to the jury the overwhelming science showing that Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder is safe and does not contain asbestos," Ewald said in an emailed statement Thursday. "Some of that science is complicated, but we trusted that the jury would understand it if we presented the issues clearly."

Johnson & Johnson said the verdict was in line with decades of scientific evidence that said its baby powder is safe.

"We sympathize with anyone suffering from cancer, and we understand patients and their families are seeking answers. The jury got it right -- Johnson's Baby Powder does not contain asbestos and was not the cause of the plaintiff's disease. This is the seventh jury that has found in favor of Johnson & Johnson, and importantly, all of the verdicts against the company that have been through the appeals process have been overturned," the company said in a statement.

The jury reached three questions, finding 10-2 the company was not negligent in plaintiff Carolyn Weirick's lung cancer. The jurors also found Johnson & Johnson's products did not contain a manufacturing defect and negative effects did not outweigh the positive benefits of the products' design. Weirick v. Brenntag North America, BC656425 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 4, 2017).

There are 2,000 pending mesothelioma cases against Johnson & Johnson that differ from the talc-ovarian cancer cases, which have yielded verdicts as high at $4.7 billion. This week a jury in Philadelphia delivered $8 billion in punitive damages to a man who said he grew breasts from taking the company's drug Risperdal, an anti-psychotic drug manufactured by Johnson & Johnson.

Like many of the talc cases, the recent trial before Los Angeles Judge Cary Nishimoto came down to a battle over science. The 60-year-old Weirick said chronic use of Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products caused her cancer. Her attorney Jay E. Stuemke told the jury Monday during closing arguments there was "overwhelming" evidence Johnson & Johnson knowingly concealed an asbestos link. He pointed to company documents dating back to the 1960s he said recognized potential lawsuits over the powder.

Stuemke also said Johnson & Johnson employed companies who would make favorable findings, employing sham testing methods that wouldn't detect asbestos in talc.

He pointed to his client's treating doctors, who testified use of the product likely caused her disease after ruling out other outside factors. He did not respond to a request for comment after the verdict.

Stuemke, who last year asked for $25 million in the case, did not ask the jurors for a specific full amount in his closing. He instead pointed out Johnson & Johnson's $75 billion net worth, saying, "The company is too big to meaningfully punish."