Key test for J&J’s talcum powder defence

Johnson & Johnson will make a high-stakes attempt to head off future losses in a courtroom battle.

Johnson & Johnson says its baby powder doesn’t cause cancer. Picture: Reuters

Johnson & Johnson, facing thousands of lawsuits over the safety of its signature baby powder after losing several trials, will make a high-stakes attempt to head off future losses in a courtroom battle beginning today (AEST).

The company is fighting about 14,200 claims that Johnson’s Baby Powder and other J&J talc products cause cancer. More than two dozen lawsuits have gone to trial in state courts, some resulting in eye-popping plaintiffs’ wins. That includes a July 2018 verdict by a St. Louis jury requiring J&J to pay $US4.69 billion ($666bn) to 22 women and their families who blamed ovarian-cancer diagnoses on baby powder.

J&J says its talc products are safe and don’t cause cancer and is appealing the adverse verdicts. The company has also won several trials in state courts.

But most of the talc claims — about 12,000 — are pending in federal courts, and none has been scheduled for trial. A federal judge in Trenton, New Jersey, Freda L. Wolfson, is overseeing co-ordinated pre-trial proceedings of the federal talc lawsuits, in what is known as multi-district litigation.

Before allowing any of the federal lawsuits to proceed to trial, Judge Wolfson is weighing the strength of the scientific evidence behind plaintiffs’ claims — the focus of a hearing scheduled to start in Trenton today.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have identified expert witnesses including biologists, physicians and epidemiologists who have concluded there is scientific evidence that talc use can cause ovarian cancer.

Many of the women who sued J&J used talc powder for feminine hygiene, and the lawsuits allege that talc particles can migrate to the fallopian tubes and ovaries, and trigger an inflammatory process leading to cancer.

In May, J&J filed court motions asking Judge Wolfson to exclude from any future federal trials the opinions of 22 expert witnesses retained by plaintiffs, arguing that “they misapply scientific principles” and “engage in unsupported leaps of logic.” Lawyers for J&J wrote: “In a nutshell, this is science for the courtroom, not science for the laboratory.” John H. Beisner, a lawyer for J&J said that if Judge Wolfson finds there isn’t enough evidence of causation to present to juries, “there’s nowhere for these cases to go,” which could result in their dismissal, wiping out the majority of talc lawsuits against J&J.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have asked the judge to deny J&J’s request, arguing the experts are qualified and used reliable methodologies to reach their opinions. The plaintiffs say there are about 35 peer-reviewed studies that show a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, most pointing to an increased risk of between 25 per cent and 45 per cent. The plaintiffs’ lawyers also argue that the opinions of certain J&J 18 witnesses should be excluded from trials.

“This is a really important step and an opportunity to put forward what we think is really overwhelming and reliable evidence,” said Leigh O’Dell, one of the co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the federal talc lawsuits.

The judge could take weeks or months to reach a decision. If she allows plaintiffs’ expert testimony about causation, it could clear the way for federal trials to begin.