Plaintiffs’ Evidence Will Be Heard in Cases Alleging J&J’s Talc Products Caused Women’s Ovarian Cancer, Announced Levin Papantonio Attorney Chris Tisi

A U.S. District Court Special Master in the talc multidistrict litigation (MDL) against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) entered an Opinion, reaffirming that plaintiffs may present expert testimony supporting general causation to the jury. Specifically, Special Master, Hon. L. Wolfson, former Chief Judge for the District of New Jersey, greenlighted the admissibility of expert testimony supporting that the perineal use of talc can cause ovarian cancer. Throughout her 600-page exhaustive review of the evidence, Judge Wolfson repeatedly emphasized that the issues raised by J&J are issues for juries.

Noting that Judge Wolfson’s Opinion is consistent with the rulings of judges throughout the country,  Chris Tisi, Levin Papantonio Partner and Member of the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee for Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder/Ovarian Cancer (MDL No. 2738), agreed that “It is the role of juries, not corporations, to decide whose science is more credible.   

“This ruling makes clear that Johnson & Johnson cannot keep this case out of the courtroom by attacking credible science,” Tisi added. “The Court recognized that plaintiffs’ experts rely on established methods, real data, and decades of research. At the end of the day, these are factual disputes, and they belong where they always have—with a jury.”

He noted that, in recent months, plaintiffs have prevailed in numerous cases alleging that Johnson’s Baby Powder contained asbestos and caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

In addition to the question of plaintiffs’ core general-causation experts, Judge Wolfson recommended that the Court allow science and geology experts to testify that J&J talc contained trace or ultra-trace asbestos and that historical testing methods, when properly applied, could detect asbestos.

The Court also upheld the notion that plaintiffs’ experts may testify about marketing, regulatory standards, industry practices, and corporate knowledge, including how Defendants’ conduct compared with what was known about talc, asbestos, and ovarian cancer at the time.

Overall, Tisi applauded the Opinion as a positive step forward for women plaintiffs and the U.S. judicial system. While J&J has vowed to appeal Judge Wolfson’s recommendation, Tisi predicts that the appeal will be promptly dismissed and that a federal trial will be set shortly.

“This case is about whether women get to have their injuries evaluated by a jury, or whether a corporation gets to insulate itself by disputing science behind closed doors,” Tisi said. “The Court affirmed that when credible evidence exists, juries—not corporate lawyers—decide responsibility. That principle matters, especially when the health and lives of women are at stake.”