J & J is ordered to pay $ 4.69 bi for talc that may have caused cancer

<img src = "https://abrilexame.files.wordpress.com/2016/09 /size_960_16_9_johnson_johnson27.jpg "class =" abril-image optimized lazyload "abril-data-id =" 3001160 "sizes =" (min-width: 991px) 680px, (max-width: 420px) 420px, (max-width: 360px ) 360px, "srcset =" https://abrilexame.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/size_960_16_9_johnson_johnson27.jpg?quality=70&strip=info&resize=680,453 680w, https://abrilexame.files.wordpress.com/2016/ 09 / size_960_16_9_johnson_johnson27.jpg? Quality = 70 & strip = all & resize = 420,280 420w, https://abrilexame.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/size_960_16_9_johnson_johnson27.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&resize=360,240 360w, "alt =" (19459029 ) Johnson & Johnson was sentenced to pay $ 4.69 billion to 22 women and their families who claim that a talc sold by the group contained asbestos and caused their cancer decided an American court on Thursday.

The verdict is the latest result of a series of thousands of lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson related to talc. According to the victims' lawyer, Mark Lanier, a jury of six men and six women in St. Louis, Missouri (center), ruled in favor of women after six six-week trials.

"

" For more than 40 years, Johnson & Johnson has been concealing evidence of the presence of asbestos in their products, "said Mr. Lanier in a statement. he was "deeply disappointed by the verdict" and pointed out that the decision "to give exactly the same value to all applicants, regardless of their individual data and legal differences, reflects the fact that the evidence was simply crushed "19659010] The group denies the presence of asbestos in its talc and promises to appeal the decision.

Mineral fiber for commercial use, asbestos was banned in a large part of the world since the late 90's because of its toxicity and

In October, a Los Angeles Court of Appeal issued a decision against Johnson & Johnson for $ 417 million, noting that the complainants' arguments were insufficient ants and waves.] CJJ Johnson and Judicial Procedures