J&J and AII Held Liable in Baby Powder Cancer Case, Jury Awards $63.3 Million

In a recent verdict, a South Carolina jury ruled in favor of a mesothelioma patient in his lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and American International Industries (AII). Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer that most often develops in the lining of the lungs, usually due to asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff, Michael Perry, alleged that his daily use of J&J's Baby Powder, necessitated by his deodorant allergy, led to his terminal cancer diagnosis in July 2023. The jury awarded a total of $63.3 million: $32.6 million in compensatory damages and $30.7 million in punitive damages.

The jury determined that both J&J and co-defendant AII, a beauty product manufacturer, were negligent in their actions. Crucially, the jury found that this negligence constituted a "proximate cause" of the plaintiff Michael Perry's mesothelioma diagnosis, establishing a direct causal link between the defendant's actions (or inactions) and the plaintiff's illness.

Evidence presented at trial suggested that J&J was aware of asbestos contamination in its talc-based products as early as 1970 but continued to market them. The company only recalled the product in 2019 after FDA testing detected asbestos in a sample.

Court records from past cases reveal that the company acknowledged the potential presence of asbestos in its talc-based products as early as the 1950s. These documents demonstrate that the company was aware of the associated health risks.

Using this evidence, the plaintiff’s counsel successfully argued that J&J deliberately misled the public by falsely claiming its baby powder was safe while concealing evidence of asbestos contamination.

In their comprehensive verdict against J&J and AII, the jurors held both corporations strictly liable for manufacturing and selling defective products that directly caused the plaintiff's injuries.

Additionally, AII was found guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, while J&J was exonerated from this specific charge. The jury determined that both companies’ actions were "willful, wanton or reckless," showing disregard for the safety of their products.

The plaintiff received approximately $23 million in compensatory damages, and his spouse, Lonnie Long, was awarded over $9.6 million for loss of consortium. Furthermore, the jury imposed punitive damages of $30 million against J&J and $760,000 against AII. In total, the jury awarded $63.4 million to the plaintiff and his spouse.

Long, Perry's wife since 2009, asserted that her husband's injuries have prevented him from fulfilling his marital obligations, leading to a claim for loss of consortium.

Johnson & Johnson maintains that its talc products were asbestos-free and did not cause cancer. The company argued that Perry's mesothelioma was more likely due to his exposure to asbestos-containing brake pads while working in his father's garage.

J&J's Worldwide Vice President of Litigation, Erik Haas, has issued a statement challenging the verdict. Haas asserts that procedural errors by the court hindered J&J's defense, necessitating multiple mistrial motions. The company plans to appeal, expressing confidence in a reversal based on precedent in similar cases.

Haas contends that the verdict contradicts extensive scientific evidence supporting talc's safety and lack of carcinogenic properties. This stance, however, conflicts with findings from a National Institutes of Health study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which suggests a correlation between talcum powder use and ovarian cancer risk, particularly with prolonged or frequent exposure.

The case is part of a broader litigation landscape involving thousands of talc-related lawsuits against J&J. Recently, the company received approval for a $6.475 billion settlement plan, aimed at resolving 99.75% of its pending talc cases.

Trey Branham, a lead attorney at the firm representing the plaintiffs, questioned the sincerity of J&J's courtroom statements, given their announced intention to appeal. Branham pointed out that during the punitive damages phase, J&J's legal team claimed they had "heard" the jury's message.

Branham expressed skepticism about this assertion, suggesting it may have been a tactical move to mitigate punitive damages rather than a genuine acknowledgment. He pointed out that J&J's appeal plans seem to contradict their courtroom stance.

Furthermore, Branham indicated his firm's commitment to pursuing additional talc-related cases against J&J, citing upcoming trials in California, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs, Perry and Long, are represented by a legal team from Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP, a Texas-based firm with a notable track record in talc cases. Their recent successes include a $260 million verdict in Oregon and a $45 million verdict in Illinois. The team includes Ben Adams, Rachel Gross, and Jonathan George. Local counsel Theile McVey of Kassel McVey is also part of the plaintiff's legal representation.

J&J's defense is led by attorneys from Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, including C. Mitchell Brown, Blake T. Williams, and Yasmeen Ebbini. Co-defendant American International Industries has retained Stephanie G. Flynn and Nicolas J. Cherry of Fox Rothschild LLP for their defense.