The Missouri Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Johnson & Johnson to a $2 billion fine in the baby powder cancer case.
The company is seeking $2.1 billion in damages over allegations that asbestos in talcum powder products, including baby powder, caused women to develop ovarian cancer years ago. Read also The microwave will not cause you cancer, but you should choose healthy foods to heat in it She defeated cancer at the age of ten.. The first American woman in space flight inside a Space X capsule Tunisia.. Women’s initiatives to help cancer patients The Italian story of Francesca with fasting, which she made a weapon to confront cancer and bullying because of her Islam
The Supreme Court announced that it would not consider the case, and Judges Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh stepped down, and although they did not explain their reasons, it was likely because Alito owned shares in the company, and that Kavanaugh’s father worked with a trade association linked to Johnson & Johnson .
The company had asked the Supreme Court to review the sentence imposed on it, after the Supreme Court last year upheld the amount. A government appeals court earlier reduced the sentence from more than $4 billion.
During the litigation stages, Johnson & Johnson said it stopped selling baby powder containing talc in the United States and Canada in May 2020, citing low demand and “fueled by misinformation about product safety,” according to the company’s description.
The company said it faces more than 21,800 lawsuits against it over its talcum powder products.
Johnson insists on denial
In contrast, former Whitewater attorney general Ken Starr, who represents women with ovarian cancer who have sued the company, wrote in his brief, urging judges not to accept the case’s appeal, asserting that Johnson & Johnson “has known for decades that talcum powders contain Asbestos is a highly carcinogenic substance, and there is no known safe exposure level to it.”
“They could have protected customers by switching from talc to cornstarch, as their scientists suggested as early as 1973. But talc was cheaper and the petitioners (Johnson’s Company) were not willing to sacrifice their profits for a safer product,” he added. Discredit the scientists who participated in studies stating the dangers of the substance used in baby powder
While Neil Katial, a lawyer for the controversial product’s manufacturer, claimed that “federal regulators and respected health organizations have rejected calls for warning about talc, comprehensive epidemiological studies tracking tens of thousands of talc users have found no meaningful association between cosmetic talc use and cancer.” ovary”.
Katial said lawyers who brought the lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson searched the country “for women with ovarian cancer, among the millions who used the petitioners’ talc products”.
“They have put dozens of women on stage to discuss their experiences with cancer, and the jury has awarded billions of dollars in punitive damages that are supposed to punish the petitioners,” he added during the lawsuit. Huge, over and over again.
In a statement, Johnson & Johnson confirmed that the Supreme Court ruling ignored independent scientific assessments that Johnson & Johnson baby powder is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer. The company’s shares have fallen more than 1% since the lawsuit’s appeal was rejected.
Appeals attempts and a reduction of the fine
Johnson & Johnson had asked the Supreme Court to review its June 2020 decision from an appeals court in Missouri. That ruling downplayed a court ruling in which the jury awarded 22 plaintiffs $4.7 billion when the women claimed that their regular use of Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder caused them to develop ovarian cancer. The company asked that court to drop the lawsuit permanently.
Instead, the appeals court reduced the ruling to $2.1 billion because some of the women who brought the lawsuit are outside the state. Otherwise it upheld the outcome of the trial, in which the court placed “a great deal of blame on the company”, saying it had exposed consumers to the carcinogen asbestos over several decades, and called it a “reckless disregard for the health and safety of others”.
Despite the lawsuits against the company, it has not yet admitted an error in the use of talc, and a year ago it had allowed retailers to sell its talcum powder products until quantities run out, despite the issuance of the compensation ruling, and it also announced that it would not withdraw its products in a number of countries outside America and Canada