Johnson & Johnson wins LA baby powder case

After a day and a half of deliberation, a Los Angeles jury sided with Johnson & Johnson in the latest suit alleging the company’s talc-based baby powder contains asbestos and was the cause of a woman’s mesothelioma.

Represented by Joseph D. Satterley of Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood APC, plaintiff Amy Fong’s personal injury and wrongful death suit included design defect, failure to warn, and negligence claims surrounding her mesothelioma, which she claimed was caused by years of exposure to asbestos contained in baby powder. Pui Fong v. Imerys Talc America Inc. BC675449 (L.A. Sup. Ct., filed Sep. 11, 2017).

“We are obviously disappointed in the jury’s decision. During the jury selection in this case, the FDA announced that they had found asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Powder,” Satterley said in an email following the verdict. “Numerous J&J historical documents in the 1970s and 1980s verify asbestos in their talc products. We will continue to fight on behalf of victims like Amy Fong.”

Satterley’s post trial remarks directly contradict a Dec. 3 statement released by Johnson & Johnson which said, “Johnson’s Baby Powder is safe and free of asbestos.”

According to the statement, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s earlier reported findings of sub-trace levels of asbestos “no greater than 0.00002% in samples from a single bottle of Johnson’s Baby Powder.”

Recent talc related lawsuits have produced mixed results. Some have seen an eye-popping verdict as high as $4.7 billion to a string of defense wins like the one delivered Monday. There are 2,000 talc mesothelioma cases, on top of thousands of lawsuits claiming years of perineal talc use gave the plaintiff women ovarian cancer.

An October report by the FDA said it found asbestos in a bottle of talc that triggered a recall. However the impact of that report may be in question.

Johnson & Johnson, represented by Kimberly Branscome of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, said tests conducted by two third-party labs show asbestos was not present in the single bottle that FDA’s contracted lab, AMA Analytical Services, Inc. tested.

“Nor was it present in retained samples of the finished lot from which the bottle was produced. Additionally, the company’s investigation revealed that the testing protocol at AMA deviated from standard practice and that AMA did not execute a full asbestos confirmation as required by their lab’s test method,” the Johnson statement reads.