Supreme Court Reviews Johnson & Johnson $2 Billion Verdict

Home » Supreme Court Reviews Johnson & Johnson $2 Billion Verdict
March 16, 2021
Edward Smith

J&J Asks Supreme Court to Review Large Verdict

On March 2, 2021, Johnson & Johnson asked the United States Supreme Court to review and grant relief from a $2 billion verdict, which originated in St. Louis, Missouri. This amount represents the largest verdict the company had leveled against it in relation to what is defined as asbestos-laden talc used in its baby powder. 

Outcome of the Original Johnson & Johnson Trial

In 2018, a jury said they had enough evidence to hold J&J liable for causing cancer in 22 women. The jury awarded the women $500 million in actual damages and $4.7 billion in punitive damages. After the J&J appealed the verdict, an appellate court on June 22, 2020, held steady on actual damages but decreased the punitive damages to $1.6 billion. Together, the actual and punitive damages came to $2.1 billion. J&J said they will continue to appeal the reduced verdict.

What Convinced the Jurors

The jurors said they were convinced by experts who used what was considered reasonable scientific methods to prove the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos in the talc. The appellate court also affirmed the expert opinion as being a crucial element in the case, capable of proving liability on the part of Johnson & Johnson. 

Johnson & Johnson Denies Culpability

J&J denied that its talcum powder contained asbestos and said the plaintiff’s case was flawed. Specifically, the company said the facts were not presented correctly and led to an unfair verdict.

Plaintiffs in J&J Trial Support Testimony

The plaintiff’s lawyers were pleased that the appellate court upheld the $500 million in actual damages. They said that this, plus the final punitive damages, would serve as a marker for further cases against Johnson & Johnson. 

Asking the United States Supreme Court to Rule in J&J’s Favor

Lawyers for J&J made it clear that they believed the trial negated the due process clause. This clause says that the government cannot deprive an entity of property unless it follows certain procedures. 

In the J&J trial, the defense said that the enormity of the testimony involving such a large number of plaintiffs obscured their individual situations. This resulted in the jury coming back with 22 similar verdicts in what the lawyers described as 22 different cases. This ended in the amount exceeding what could have been expected in a single plaintiff trial.

The company also commented on the trial judge’s claim of jurisdiction over lawsuits initiated by plaintiffs from other states. The judge, Rex Burlison, backed this up by saying that J&J used and distributed talcum powder obtained from a supplier in Missouri.

The appellate court said that jurisdictional arguments made by J&J were not valid. The appellate court also said that joining multiple cases together did not cause negative issues for the jury. 

Taking Johnson & Johnson to Task

In our society, manufacturers from automakers to pharmaceutical companies are mandated to ensure that their product is safe. When a careful investigation of the case shows that this obligation was not heeded, the injured party has a right to take the manufacturer to court. Your personal injury attorney can provide the insight you need at this crucial time. It is important to seek out an attorney you trust. 

Sacramento Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawyer

I’m Ed Smith, a Sacramento talcum powder ovarian cancer lawyer. I am here if you’ve suffered an injury due to actions by J&J. Call me for my free and friendly advice. You can reach me at (916) 921-6400 or at (800) 404-5400. I am also available online.

I’ve helped numerous clients with product liability lawsuits. Such claims are used when a product hurts or kills a consumer due to negligence.

Learn more about my law firm here:

I am pleased to be a member of the following organizations:

Attributed photo: https://pixabay.com/photos/justice-statue-lady-justice-2060093/

:cd llo [cs 664]