A Missouri court sided with 22 women who used the products and developed ovarian cancer.<\/b>
\nWASHINGTON \u2014 Johnson & Johnson is asking for Supreme Court review of a $2 billion verdict in favor of women who claim they developed ovarian cancer from using the company\u2019s talc products. The case features an array of high-profile attorneys, some in unusual alliances, including former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who is representing the women who sued Johnson & Johnson. The nation\u2019s largest business groups are backing the company, and a justice\u2019s father also makes an appearance because of his long association with the trade group for cosmetics and personal care products. The court could say as soon as Tuesday whether it will get involved. At the root, Johnson & Johnson argues that the company didn\u2019t get a fair shake in a trial in state court in Missouri that resulted in an initial $4.7 billion verdict in favor of 22 women who used talc products and developed ovarian cancer. A state appeals court cut more than half the money out of the verdict and eliminated two of the plaintiffs but otherwise upheld the outcome in a trial in which lawyers for both sides presented dueling expert testimony about whether the company\u2019s talc products contain asbestos and asbestos-laced talc can cause ovarian cancer. The jury found for the women on both points, after which Judge Rex M. Burlison wrote that evidence at the trial showed \u201cparticularly reprehensible conduct on the part of Defendants.\u201d The evidence, Burlison wrote, included that the company knew there was asbestos in products aimed at mothers and babies, knew of the potential harm and \u201cmisrepresented the safety of these products for decades.\u201d Nine of the women has died from ovarian cancer, lawyers for the plaintiffs said Johnson & Johnson denies that its talc products cause cancer and it called the verdict in the Missouri trial \u201cat odds with decades of independent scientific evaluations confirming Johnson\u2019s Baby Powder is safe, is not contaminated by asbestos and does not cause cancer.\u201d The company also is the maker of one of three COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the United States. Health concerns about talcum powders have prompted thousands of U.S. lawsuits by women who claim asbestos in the powder caused their cancer. Talc is a mineral similar in structure to asbestos, which is known to cause cancer, and they are sometimes obtained from the same mines. The cosmetics industry in 1976 agreed to make sure its talc products do not contain detectable amounts of asbestos. Last year, a U.S. government-led analysis of 250,000 women found no strong evidence linking baby powder with ovarian cancer in the largest analysis to look at the question, though the study\u2019s lead author called the results \u201cvery ambiguous.\u201d The findings were called \u201coverall reassuring\u201d in an editorial published with the study in January 2020 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study wasn\u2019t definitive but more conclusive research probably isn\u2019t feasible because a dwindling number of women use powder for personal hygiene, the editorial said. A few months later, the company announced it would stop selling its iconic talc-based Johnson\u2019s Baby Powder in the U.S. and Canada, citing declining demand driven by what it called misinformation about health concerns. The disputed link between cancer and talc is not really a part of the high court case. Instead, the company said it should have not been forced to defend itself in one trial against claims by women from 12 states, differing backgrounds and with varying histories of using Johnson & Johnson products containing talc. The $1.6 billion in punitive damages is out of line and should be reduced, the company also argued in a brief that was written by Neal Katyal, a Washington lawyer who aligns with progressive causes and also represents corporate clients. Katyal, who was the acting top Supreme Court lawyer for a time in the Obama administration, declined an on-the-record interview. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and trade associations for manufacturers, insurers and the pharmaceutical industry are among the business organizations backing Johnson & Johnson\u2019s appeal. Tiger Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, pointed to how long it took the trial judge to read the jury its instructions as an indication of how unfair the trial was to Johnson & Johnson. \u201cWhen a defendant is facing a case where it takes over five hours for the judge to read the jury instructions to the jury, you just have to ask yourself what are we doing here,\u201d said Joyce, whose group generally backs limits on liability lawsuits. Starr said in an interview with The Associated Press that none of Johnson & Johnson\u2019s legal arguments is worth the court\u2019s time. \u201cAs the jury found and as every judge to review this six-week trial record has concluded, Johnson & Johnson\u2019s conduct over decades was reprehensible,\u201d Starr said. In addition to Starr, other members of the women\u2019s legal team are former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Washington lawyers David Frederick and Tom Goldstein, frequent advocates before the Supreme Court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh worked for Starr when he investigated the affair between President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, which led to Clinton\u2019s impeachment. Another name that pops up in some documents in the case is E. Edward Kavanaugh, who was the longtime president of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association and is the justice\u2019s father. Kavanaugh\u2019s group fought efforts to list talc as a carcinogen or attach warning labels to talc products. Kavanaugh is retired and the group now is called the Personal Care Products Council. Ethicists contacted by the AP said they haven\u2019t seen anything that would warrant the justice having to step aside from the case. Already, one justice almost certainly won\u2019t take part. Justice Samuel Alito reported last year that he owned $15,000 to $50,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock. Federal law prohibits judges from sitting on cases in which they have financial interest. Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page. Enter your email and password to access comments. Forgot Password? Don’t have a Talk profile? Create one. Invalid username\/password. Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration. Create a commenting profile by providing an email address, password and display name. You will receive an email to complete the registration. Please note the display name will appear on screen when you participate. Already registered? Log in to join the discussion. Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login to participate in the conversation. Here\u2019s why. Use the form below to reset your password. When you’ve submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code. Send questions\/comments to the editors. \u00ab Previous<\/p>\n