Breaking News
0
Ad-Free Version. Upgrade your Investing.com experience. Save up to 40% More details

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs J&J appeal over $2 billion baby powder judgment

Sports & GeneralJun 01, 2021 06:00PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Bottles of Johnson & Johnson baby powder line a drugstore shelf in New York October 15, 2015. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ)'s bid to overturn a $2.12 billion damages award to women who blamed their ovarian cancer on asbestos in the company's baby powder and other talc products.

The justices turned away a J&J appeal and left in place a Missouri state court ruling in litigation brought by 22 women whose claims were heard together in one trial.

The Missouri Court of Appeals, an intermediate state appellate court, last year ruled against J&J's bid to throw out the compensatory and punitive damages awarded to the plaintiffs but reduced the total to $2.12 billion from the $4.69 billion originally decided by a jury.

J&J, which will make a payment of $2.5 billion this month including accrued interest, said in a statement that there are unresolved legal issues that will continue to be litigated. It previously has said it faces more than 19,000 similar claims.

"The matters that were before the court are related to legal procedure, and not safety. Decades of independent scientific evaluations confirm Johnson's Baby Powder is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer," the company said.

J&J shares were down about 1.2% at $167.23.

J&J has argued that a decision by a Missouri circuit court judge to consolidate disparate baby powder-related claims from the plaintiffs - including 17 women from outside the state - for a trial before a single jury violated the New Brunswick (NYSE:BC), New Jersey-based company's due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. J&J also has argued that the size of the jury's damages award violated its due process rights.

The Missouri Supreme Court, the state's highest court, in November declined to hear J&J's appeal of the Missouri Court of Appeals ruling, prompting the company to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This was a victory not just for the amazing women and their families who we were privileged to represent, but a victory for justice," said Mark Lanier, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

DISPUTE OVER JURISDICTION

The plaintiffs, nine of whom have died and are now represented by their estates, have argued that Missouri courts have jurisdiction over out-of-state claims like those brought in this litigation. One of the products that the out-of-state plaintiffs said they had used was manufactured in Missouri.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs also have argued that the large punitive damages awarded by the jury in this case were justified by J&J's conduct. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said in court papers it is common practice for courts to consolidate cases at trial when the facts in each claim are essentially the same.

The Missouri Court of Appeals concluded that it was reasonable to infer from the evidence that J&J "disregarded the safety of consumers" in its drive for profit despite knowing its talc products caused ovarian cancer. It also found "significant reprehensibility" in J&J's conduct.

In addition to reducing the damages, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed two of the 17 out-of-state plaintiffs.

In court papers, J&J said the case followed a "winning formula" devised by plaintiffs' lawyers of bringing claims in jurisdictions where they can get dozens of out-of-state plaintiffs to testify in a single trial, prejudicing the jury and resulting in "outsized" damages awards.

In the Missouri trial, the company said, the jury awarded each plaintiff an identical punitive damages award of $25 million, regardless of the facts specific to each plaintiff or whether they were alive or dead. The company also said the jury awarded punitive damages much larger than the "already staggering" compensatory damages, which J&J has called a further violation of its due process rights.

Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the appeal, likely because he owns J&J stock. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose father - now retired - was a longtime lobbyist for the toiletries industry, also did not take part. The justices do not explain why they step aside in certain cases.

A 2018 Reuters investigation https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer found that J&J knew for decades that asbestos, a carcinogen, was present in its talc products. Internal company records, trial testimony and other evidence showed that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, J&J's raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos.

The company said in May 2020 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-babypowder/johnson-johnson-to-stop-selling-talc-baby-powder-in-u-s-and-canada-idUSKBN22V32U it would stop selling its baby powder talc in the United States and Canada, citing changes in consumer habits and what it called "misinformation" about the product's safety amid numerous legal challenges.

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs J&J appeal over $2 billion baby powder judgment
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Disclaimer: Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. All CFDs (stocks, indexes, futures) and Forex prices are not provided by exchanges but rather by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual market price, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Therefore Fusion Media doesn`t bear any responsibility for any trading losses you might incur as a result of using this data.

Fusion Media or anyone involved with Fusion Media will not accept any liability for loss or damage as a result of reliance on the information including data, quotes, charts and buy/sell signals contained within this website. Please be fully informed regarding the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, it is one of the riskiest investment forms possible.
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email