As first appeared in NewsBreak
By Aron Solomon
The New Jersey appeals court decision to toss a $223.8 million jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) in a talc cancer case was based on the finding that the expert testimony presented by the plaintiffs was not scientifically sound.
The appellate court determined that a lower court judge should not have allowed some of the scientific expert testimony, which ultimately influenced the jury’s decision. This ruling highlights the importance of scientifically valid evidence in such cases and the need for a rigorous evaluation of expert testimony.
The case involved four plaintiffs who claimed to have developed cancer from being exposed to J&J’s talc powder products. The jury initially ordered the company to pay $37.2 million in compensatory damages and $750 million in punitive damages, although the amount was automatically reduced to $186.5 million under state law.
The appeals court’s decision to overturn this verdict is a significant win for J&J, which has been facing numerous lawsuits related to its talc products.
It is unclear whether the case will be eventually heading to the New Jersey Supreme Court. As New Jersey plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer Michael Epstein observed, “In the real world, what’s going to happen next is that the case will be sent back to the trial court for a new trial. That could significantly alter the original verdict.” Epstein also shared his perspective on the lawsuit in a recent TikTok explanatory video.
In a separate talc case in Missouri, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected J&J’s appeal of a $2 billion verdict in favor of women who claimed to have developed ovarian cancer from using the company’s talc products. The Missouri jury had initially awarded the women $4.7 billion, but a state appeals court dropped two women from the suit and reduced the award to $2 billion.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Missouri case indicates the challenges J&J may face in appealing talc-related verdicts at the highest level. But before this case gets anywhere near the Court, it has to again move through the New Jersey court system, which could be a lengthy and circuitous process.
About Aron Solomon
A Pulitzer Prize-nominated writer, Aron Solomon, JD, is the Chief Legal Analyst for Esquire Digital and the Editor-in-Chief for Today’s Esquire. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world. Aron has been featured in Forbes, CBS News, CNBC, USA Today, ESPN, TechCrunch, The Hill, BuzzFeed, Fortune, Venture Beat, The Independent, Fortune China, Yahoo!, ABA Journal, Law.com, The Boston Globe, YouTube, NewsBreak, and many other leading publications.
A Pulitzer Prize-nominated writer, Aron Solomon, JD, is the Chief Strategy Officer for AMPLIFY. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world. Aron has been featured in Newsweek, The Hill, Fast Company, Fortune, Forbes, CBS News, CNBC, USA Today, ESPN, TechCrunch, BuzzFeed, Venture Beat, The Independent, Fortune China, Abogados, Today’s Esquire, Yahoo!, ABA Journal, Law.com, The Boston Globe, and many other leading publications across the globe.
Discover more from Today's Esquire
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
