[ad_1]
Johnson & Johnson appealed for a $ 4.7 billion verdict against 22 women claiming talcum talcum powder in the company's products, claiming that the plaintiffs' science was flawed and that it was not safe. case should not have been heard in Missouri
But several legal experts have stated that even though J & J has managed to win appeals in other talc affairs in Missouri, it will face a challenge in calling the verdict made Thursday in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. .
John Beisner, an attorney at Johnson & Johnson, said, "One of the most difficult things will be prioritizing the call." He explained to Reuters the jurisdictional and scientific arguments of the & # 39; 39 company to reverse the verdict on Thursday. In a statement, J & J reiterated its position that its products never contain asbestos and are not carcinogenic.
Thursday's verdict is the most important to date. The jury rendered its decision in less than a day, after five weeks of expert testimony from both parties
. The stakes are potentially high for J & J, which faces 9,000 cases of talc at the national level. The company has already managed to overturn big verdicts in talc business as well as others alleging damage caused by its products.
But several legal experts have stated that the Missouri courts, particularly at the appellate courts and supreme courts, were historically favorable to the plaintiffs. "J & J has strong arguments, but unless they manage to certify this case to the US Supreme Court, which are very long chances, this decision is likely to be upheld" said Lars Noah, a law professor.
He said that he was expecting J & J to go through the appeal process, but would eventually settle the case.
Beisner said that he was not aware of any interest in the settlement. "Our attention will remain focused on the appeals of this trial and other pending trials."
Beisner said the jurisdiction will be a major basis for J & J to appeal Thursday's verdict. Most of the 22 plaintiffs were not residents of Missouri, and he said that they should not have been allowed to sue Johnson & Johnson of New Jersey in St. Louis under the law. a recent decision of the US Supreme Court that severely restricted the jurisdiction of state courts.
J & J took this decision to successfully reverse previous talc verdicts in Missouri.
Mark Lanier, the plaintiffs' attorney who won the verdict on Thursday, said he was ready for this argument.
Lanier said his team had ambaded "hundreds of pages of evidence" showing J & J's lobbying efforts and baby powder focus groups in the state. He also pointed to the statement of 15 of his non-resident clients that they had used a short-lived J & J talc product made by a Missouri contractor.
"I hope they will focus their appeal on jurisdiction because I am confident we will win that," Lanier said. He said that he was expecting the amount of punitive damages to be halved during the appeal process due to a state law. of Missouri that caps this damage, but he is confident that the verdict would remain broadly.
Elizabeth Burch, a law professor at the University of Georgia, said that even according to the new Supreme Court guidelines, women's badertion that they were using the specific product, if it was true At trial, J & J had tried unsuccessfully to cast doubt on the allegations of women who had used the same product that was only available for a few months, describing it as a trick designed to circumvent the question of skill. . At the same time as the jurisdictional arguments, Beisner said the company would continue to argue that scientific studies show overwhelmingly that talc itself is safe and that the company's talc-based products do not never contain asbestos.
"None of the complainants' experts has been able to present a valid theory and there is simply no science to support what they call asbestos in the product" said Beisner. , including a study by the US Food and Drug Administration, support his position.
[ad_2]
Source link
