Several thousand lawsuits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson in connection with this matter |
US pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson was Thursday ordered to pay out $4.69 billion in damages in a lawsuit representing 22 women and their families who alleged a talc sold by the company contained asbestos and caused them to suffer cancer.
It is the
latest twist in a matter that has seen several thousand lawsuits filed against
J&J.
According
to the victims' lawyer, Mark Lanier, a jury composed of six men and six women
in St Louis, Missouri, ruled in favor of the women after a six-week trial and
eight hours of deliberation. The damages include $550 million in compensation
and over $4.1 billion in punitive damages.
The
plaintiffs said using the talc for personal hygiene had caused ovarian cancer.
"For
over 40 years, Johnson & Johnson has covered up the evidence of asbestos in
their products," Lanier said in a statement.
"We
hope this verdict will get the attention of the J&J board and that it will
lead them to better inform the medical community and the public about the
connection between asbestos, talc, and ovarian cancer," he said, calling
for talc to be pulled from the market.
J&J
said it was "deeply disappointed in the verdict."
In a
statement, it described the trial as "a fundamentally unfair process that
allowed plaintiffs to present a group of 22 women, most of whom had no
connection to Missouri, in a single case all alleging that they developed
ovarian cancer."
"The
result of the verdict, which awarded the exact same amounts to all plaintiffs
irrespective of their individual facts, and differences in applicable law,
reflects that the evidence in the case was simply overwhelmed by the prejudice
of this type of proceeding."
The company
said its talc does not contain asbestos or cause ovarian cancer, and vowed it
would "pursue all available appellate remedies."
Several
similar trials have already taken place, with a Los Angeles appeals court last
October dismissing a $417 million verdict against J&J, saying the
complainant's arguments were insufficient and vague.
No comments:
Post a Comment