Court decision could help J & J defeat St. Louis talc lawsuit

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A Missouri Supreme Court ruling on talc prosecutions could reduce liability and the number of large-scale lawsuits threatened by allegations that its talc products, including baby powder , could cause cancer.

The decision will likely provide relief to the health conglomerate, which faces increasing pressure on the safety of its talc-based products, some defense lawyers said. The company disclosed Wednesday in its annual report that it has received subpoenas from the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission in a dispute over talc.

Some plaintiffs' lawyers, however, downplayed the impact of the decision.

This was a trial before the 22nd circuit court of Saint-Louis, brought by 21 plaintiffs from outside the city whose cases were joined to that of a single resident of Saint-Louis, which culminated in July in a record $ 4.69 billion talc against J & J. The company faces several other lawsuits of this type in St. Louis.

However, the Missouri High Court, on February 13, ruled in a separate case allowing a non-resident to participate in joined cases was "a clear and direct violation" of state law prohibiting the recourse to the junction – combining two or more cases -. allow the courts to hear cases that they could not otherwise.

Most state courts can only hear cases involving plaintiffs or defendants from that state or alleging injuries within their jurisdiction. The US Supreme Court strengthened these restrictions in a decision made in 2017.

But the St. Louis court had allowed residents from outside the state to sue the J & J of New Jersey through a liberal junction usage. In the July verdict, 18 of the claimants were from outside Missouri and three from the city of St. Louis. According to documents filed by the court, of the approximately 700 Talc cases filed in St. Louis, only 40 relate to Missouri residents.

If the Feb. 13 ruling closes the Saint-Louis court on non-resident claims, J & J could have a stronger defense defense in smaller talc cases, split between other federal and provincial courts. less potentially more favorable to complainants.

"There is no real way to read this decision except that our court made it clear that we could not badociate ourselves with a claim if the injury did not occur at the meeting venue," he said. Mark Cheffo, defense counsel for product liability not involved in Talc litigation. .

In a statement, J & J said it was satisfied with the decision. "An application which has been duly considered by a court can not serve as a basis for the introduction into a trial of other applications that are not. We believe that this decision is clearly the right one and we continue to think that science does not support the plaintiffs' claims, "said the company, declining any further comment.

UNCLEAR IMPACT

Some plaintiffs' lawyers have stated that the February 13 ruling was not as final as Cheffo suggests.

"If the defendants celebrate this decision as the end of the crime of gravity of the tort in St. Louis, they have not read the entirety of Missouri's case law," said Eric Holland, a plaintiff-based lawyer. in St. Louis and involved in the talc dispute.

Holland cited a 2016 decision by the Missouri Supreme Court upholding the $ 38 million verdict in a pharmaceutical liability case that the defendant alleged had been misunderstood. The court left the result, claiming that even an inappropriate junction did not render the trial unfair to the accused.

Although the 2016 decision involves a case already settled, Holland's lawyers and other plaintiffs have stated that they intended to argue that its fairness badysis also applied to the extra-state Talc claims in who were not yet judged. They also claimed that they would also join the business as the most efficient use of judicial resources.

Defense lawyers have stated that the February 13 ruling would likely mean the rejection or severance of out-of-court applications from four upcoming cases involving multiple plaintiffs who are facing trial at St. Louis. Two of the cases were decided by the Missouri Supreme Court prior to his decision.

Holland and other plaintiffs have stated that they would challenge J & J's requests to split or dismiss Talc cases by saying that the February 13 ruling did not overturn the 2016 decision.

Cheffo said the 2016 ruling could make it more difficult for J & J to overturn the July verdict and its record sentence, as the company would have to prove that the joinder had resulted in an unfair trial.

"FORUM SHOPPING" BY EXTRA-STATE COMPLAINANTS

The St. Louis court has been the scene of several trials for talc and has seen larger verdicts than any other jurisdiction. Outside of St. Louis, the only other significant verdicts against talc against J & J to date have been brought in lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs in New Jersey and California, where the company is currently doing the subject of a jury verdict totaling $ 142 million.

A Los Angeles jury awarded a verdict of $ 417 million for talc against J & J in 2017, but the judge dismissed the award several weeks later because it was not supported by the evidence. All Talc verdicts against J & J are on appeal.

The St. Louis Court has in the past inflicted punitive punitive damages on corporations and has often been criticized by corporate groups for allowing "forum shopping" to plaintiffs outside the province. # 39; State.

While J & J faces lawsuits brought by people from other jurisdictions, the cases to several plaintiffs in the St. Louis case are the most important and offer the greatest potential for additional verdict of $ 39 billion.

The plaintiffs allege that talc contained in Johnson's baby powder and other J & J products is the cause of ovarian cancer or that asbestos contamination in talcum causes cancer of the ovary. ovary and mesothelioma. Asbestos is a known carcinogen linked to mesothelioma.

J & J and its talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, the litigator, denied the allegations, saying that numerous studies and tests by regulators around the world had shown that their talc was safe and asbestos-free.

On December 14, Reuters released a report stating that J & J knew that talc contained in its raw and finished powders was sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos from the 1970s to the early 2000s. not disclosed to regulators or consumers. (Reut.rs/2Gh88KO)

J & J is currently facing about 13,000 talc suits, most of which have been consolidated in a New Jersey federal court. Many of the plaintiff's lawyers fought to keep the cases in federal court, which they felt favored the accused.

Three juries rejected claims that Baby Powder was contaminated with asbestos or caused the mesothelioma of the plaintiffs. Five other juries failed to rule, resulting in trial errors.

In a statement, Imerys Talc America said the Missouri ruling upheld the legal arguments put forward in a dispute over the past four years. The company filed for bankruptcy in Chapter 11 on February 13, claiming that it did not have the financial power to defend itself against talc lawsuits.