Johnson’s Baby Powder is a staple in many American households. Not only does it soften babies’ bums and prevent diaper rash, but it can also be used by adults as a great deodorizer, dry shampoo, and ant repeller. But before you begin bathing in this magical powdery cure-all, you might like to know that it may also be good for causing cancer, according to a recent Missouri jury ruling.

A St. Louis jury ordered consumer goods manufacturer Johnson & Johnson to pay $75 million to the family of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to her use of the company’s talc-based Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products.

The civil suit by Jacqueline Fox, who lived in Birmingham, Alabama, was part of a larger case involving 60 plaintiffs. A St. Louis jury awarded $10 million in actual damages and $65 million in punitive damages to Fox’s family after her son, Martin Salter, took over as plaintiff following her October 2015 death. Fox had used Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products for 35 years before being diagnosed three years ago with ovarian cancer.

Since Fox’s case was the first to come to trial, it will likely set a precedent for the other cases still to come. According to Reuters, about 1,000 cases have already been filed against Johnson & Johnson in Missouri state court , and another 200 in New Jersey.

In a press conference Jere Beasley, a lawyer for Fox’s family, said they were “able to prove statistically that 1,500 women have died every year from the association of talc and ovarian cancer.” The legal team was also able to prove that Johnson & Johnson had prior knowledge that its hygienic talc was unsafe. An internal memo dating back to September 1997 was submitted into evidence, that showed a company media consultant suggesting that “anybody who denies” the risk of using hygienic talc and ovarian cancer is “denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Despite the jury’s outcome, there is still some debate over whether or not talc powder is a direct cause of ovarian cancer. Talcum powder in the past often used talc containing asbestos, which are known carcinogens, whereas modern powder does not. Therefore it’s possible that some people may have developed cancer with contaminated talc in the past.

According to USA Today, Carol Goodrich, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman, said the company stands by the talc used in all “global products” and they are “evaluating” their legal options. Goodrich said in a statement,

The recent U.S. verdict goes against decades of sound science proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient in multiple products, and while we sympathize with the family of the plaintiff, we strongly disagree with the outcome.

The huge dollar sign attached to this payout can only mean good things for the now hundreds of plaintiffs still waiting to go to trial. But if  Johnson & Johnson continues to lose, these damages could have dire consequences for the company.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $72 Million in Talc Powder Cancer Case appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Johnson & Johnson had a $2.2 billion settlement, rendering it the third highest pharmaceutical fraud settlement made with the United States government. Will this trend continue, or will Johnson & Johnson learn from their mistakes as well as those of their predecessors?

Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent recommendations based on their clinical judgment, Johnson & Johnson viewed the pharmacists as an ‘extension of [J&J’s] sales force,” the Justice Department claimed. That, more or less, is what Johnson & Johnson was sued for; drug-makers are legally only allowed to promote their product for cures in the way that the FDA has approved of them.

In a class action case, Johnson & Johnson was said to have wrongfully marketed their drugs created to treat schizophrenia, Risperdal and Invega, as dementia medication for elderly patients. Furthermore, the company allegedly lied about Risperdal’s side effects and withheld information that the medication led to diabetes. Although legally settling, the company still denied the allegations. Claiming innocence, Johnson & Johnson stated, “the settlement of the civil allegations is not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing, and the company expressly denies the government’s civil allegations.” In defending their drug, they claimed Risperdal to be “safe and effective for its approved indications”, and “an important treatment option for people with serious mental illness.”

Sure, the government has cracked down on Johnson & Johnson, and now the company is paying $2.2 billion, but does that actually mean anything? Johnson & Johnson has a net worth of $65.03 billion. In preparation for this case, the company set aside money to pay their penalties, rendering the fine insignificant for a company of great wealth and success.

So, will anything change from this settlement? Michael Ullmann, Vice President and General Counsel of Johnson & Johnson reflected, “today we reached closure on complex legal matters spanning almost a decade. This resolution [which] allows us to move forward and continue to focus on delivering innovative solutions that improve and enhance the health and well-being of patients around the world.”

I speculate that the government will tighten the reigns and harshly proctor the company, as well as extend this strict scrutiny to others drug-providers. But as a result of the simple nature of medications, being that they were released to the public shortly after their creation, and the system of pharmaceutical representatives, a heavily corrupted system, long term changes or consequential changes seem extremely unlikely to occur.

Shedding light on the impact of this case, Attorney General Eric Holder said “every time pharmaceutical companies engage in this type of conduct, they corrupt medical decisions by healthcare providers, jeopardize the public health, and take money out of taxpayers’ pockets.” Pharmaceutical representation is a capitalist system that encourages sales people to push drugs onto doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes which economically resonates, and yet morally conflicts with our way of conducting business. People become less important than businesses, as finances dictate our capitalist ways. C’est la vie. Being third in the country sounds significant, but the ranking, like China’s GDP, its just an arbitrary number in this case, meaningless.

[NPR] [NYTimes] [CNN] [J&J]

—

Featured image courtesy of [DraconianRain via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Our Everyday Drug Dealer appeared first on Law Street.