Key Milestones Of The Talcum Powder Litigation

Key Takeaways

• Talc litigation began after studies in the 1970s suggested a link between talc powder and ovarian cancer. Early lawsuits were often dismissed due to insufficient evidence, but scientific research and public awareness gradually increased.
  
• Several landmark cases, such as those of Deane Berg, Jacqueline Fox, and Lois Slemp, set critical precedents for holding manufacturers accountable, leading to substantial financial settlements and jury awards.
  
• Significant awards have been granted to plaintiffs in multiple high-profile cases, with some verdicts overturned but others upheld. These rulings have had far-reaching impacts on both the legal landscape and public health policy.
  
• The litigation continues with thousands of cases pending and new agreements reached, such as Johnson & Johnson’s $6.5 billion bankruptcy proposal in 2024, aiming to settle claims and bring further changes to product labeling and safety standards.

For many, the talc litigation story is more than just a headline—it’s a deeply personal battle for justice and truth. If you or a loved one have been affected by ovarian cancer linked to talc, you know just how long and hard the fight has been so far. 

To appreciate the progress we’ve made, let’s look at some key moments in talc litigation history, exploring the ups and downs, the turning points, and the tireless fight of individuals who stood up against corporations.This journey through the courts hasn’t been easy, but it’s brought about crucial changes and raised awareness worldwide. 

We hope this empowers you with the knowledge and confidence that every voice, including yours, has the power to make a difference.

Early Cases and Allegations

The talcum powder litigation saga started in the 1970s, when researchers first began studying the possible link between talc and ovarian cancer. Early claims and lawsuits began popping up to challenge the safety of these products, especially those made by Johnson & Johnson.  

“A product that’s on every shopping list in America should be safe, period. It wasn’t long before people started demanding accountability from Johnson & Johnson.” 

Early Scientific Studies and Their Impact

In 1971, British researchers found talc particles deeply embedded in ovarian and cervical tumors. It was one of the first studies to draw a possible link between using talc powder and ovarian cancer, and it got people’s attention. Who didn’t have a bottle of baby powder in their medicine cabinet? 

As the study gained traction, it sparked wider concern among the medical community and, eventually, the public. And then, outrage. A product that’s on every shopping list in America should be safe, period. It wasn’t long before people started demanding accountability from Johnson & Johnson. 

Initial Talc Claims and Lawsuits

Like any movement, things started out slowly. One of the first talc-related lawsuits was filed in 1971 by a mother whose daughter died of ovarian cancer. Early cases like this one didn’t attract much publicity, and many others were dismissed altogether because the scientific evidence just wasn’t strong enough yet. 

But as more studies surfaced, every claim posed a bigger risk to Johnson & Johnson. This was just the beginning of a decades-long battle that has grown exponentially since those early cases.

Research on Talc/Cancer Link Continues

Experts continued to study the connection between talc powder and ovarian cancer all throughout the 1980s, 1990s and beyond. Some studies were consistent with those earlier reports. They found a slight but statistically significant increase in cancer risk in people who used talc powder for a long time. It was especially significant in women who regularly used the powder on their genitals.

However, some studies weren’t so clear. Even organizations like the FDA and EPA stopped short of confirming a link between talc and cancer. 

“In 2016, a few months after her death, [Jaqueline Fox’s] voice rang out in court through a pre-recorded audio deposition to tell her story one last time.”

Conflicting reports make an already confusing legal situation even worse. On one hand, the studies inspired more people to come forward and tell their stories and led to more regulatory scrutiny. On the other hand, the ambiguity made it easier for J&J to defend their products, arguing that the scientific evidence was inconclusive.

Major Legal Milestones

Deane Berg

Things started picking up in the early 2000s with the case of Deane Berg. In 2006, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in 2009, alleging her cancer was caused by talc powder. 

In 2013, she walked into a lawyer’s office where she was offered a large settlement. When she learned the deal wouldn’t include a warning label on Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder, she declined. Her only wish, according to The New Yorker, was to raise awareness and ensure other women didn’t suffer like she did. 

When all was said and done, the courts found J&J guilty of negligence for failing to warn of the risk of ovarian cancer. Berg was awarded no damages, but it’s safe to say she achieved what she set out to do. Because of her courage, a precedent was set for future cases that said companies should be held accountable for failing to warn consumers. 

Jaqueline Fox

Before she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, Jaqueline Fox used talc-based products for more than 30 years. She filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, but passed away in 2015 before a decision was made. 

In 2016, a few months after her death, her voice rang out in court through a pre-recorded audio deposition to tell her story one last time. By the end, her family was awarded $72 million. The first time a monetary award was given in a talc settlement. It opened the floodgates for true justice in future cases.

Other Significant Verdicts and Settlements

Deborah Giannecchini v. Johnson & Johnson (October 2016) – Giannecchini had been using the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder on her genitals for about 40 years. As a result, she developed ovarian cancer and was diagnosed in 2016 to have an 80% chance of dying in the next two years. Fortunately for Giannecchini, the jury ruled in favor of her and awarded her roughly $70 million and an additional $2 million paid by co-defendant Imerys, one of J&J’s major talc suppliers.

“In a historic development, 75% of active talc claimants voted to approve J&J’s bankruptcy proposal. It sets aside $6.5 billion to settle claims.”

Philip Depoian v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (October 2016) – Depoian used to frequent the barbershop his father worked at and claimed that his mesothelioma diagnosis resulted from inhaling talc particles asbestos exposure from talcum powders in his father’s workplace. A Los Angeles jury eventually ruled in favor of him and awarded him $18 million to be paid by talc supplier Whittaker, Clark & Daniels.

Lois Slemp v. Johnson & Johnson (May 2017) – Slemp alleged that her ovarian cancer is caused by J&J’s talcum powder products that she had been using for over 40 years. A St. Louis jury awarded her a total of $110 million in compensatory and punitive damages, but the ruling was reversed in October 2019.

Eva Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson (August 2017) – Echeverria claimed that her continued talcum powder use for over 40 years caused her to develop ovarian cancer. A California jury ruled in favor of her, and she was awarded $417 million, but she died shortly after, the following month after she won her case. In 2017, the verdict was overturned.

Richard Booker v. Imerys Talc America (December 2017) – Booker sued talc supplier Imerys alongside Dexter Midland Chemical Co., Walter N. Boysen Co., and Vanderbilt Minerals after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of his constant exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc found in the paint he was making when he was still working for Dexter Midland and Boysen. Booker died in 2016, but a California jury only awarded him over $22 million in damages about a year after his death.

Stephen Lanzo III v. Johnson & Johnson (April 2018) – Lanzo III sued J&J and its talc supplier Imerys after he developed mesothelioma from constant use of J&J’s baby powder and Shower to Shower for years. A New Jersey jury eventually awarded Lanzo III $117 million in damages, but this verdict was later overturned in April 2021 to rule in favor of J&J.

Missouri class action lawsuit (July 2018) – Twenty-two women were behind this landmark class-action lawsuit. They all claimed that J&J’s asbestos-contaminated talcum baby powder had caused them to develop ovarian cancer. In total, a St. Louis jury awarded them a whopping $4.69 billion in damages. J&J appealed the ruling, but the decision was not reversed, and the initial verdict was upheld.

Douglas Barden et al. v. Johnson & Johnson (September 2019) – Plaintiffs Douglas Barden, Will Ronning, D’Angela Mcneill-George, and David Etheridge claimed that they got mesothelioma after they ingested asbestos and talc particles from using the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder. A New Jersey jury awarded them $37.2 million in compensatory damages and an additional $750 million in punitive damages.

Christina Prudencio v. Johnson & Johnson (August 2021) – Plaintiff claimed that her long-term J&J talcum powder use led to her mesothelioma diagnosis. A California jury eventually awarded her $26.5 million and an additional $100,000 million in punitive damages.

Tentative agreement (January 2024) – Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay ~ $700 million to settle claims in over 40 states that allege it wrongfully marketed its talc-based baby powder products by not disclosing their potential health risks.

Johnson & Johnson payout plan approved (2024) – In a historic development, 75% of active talc claimants voted to approve J&J’s bankruptcy proposal. It sets aside $6.5 billion to settle claims.

As the litigation continues, the impact of these legal milestones is far-reaching. Thousands of additional cases are pending, and manufacturers face ongoing scrutiny from both the legal system and regulatory bodies. The talcum powder litigation has not only reshaped the legal landscape but also influenced public health policies, leading to changes in product formulations and labeling across the industry.

The evolution of talcum powder litigation illustrates a complex intersection of legal, scientific, and public health issues. From the initial claims and early legal challenges to significant court victories and substantial settlements, the litigation has underscored the profound impact of scientific debate on legal outcomes and corporate practices. 

The substantial financial awards and settlements reflect both the serious concerns raised by plaintiffs and the shifting approach of manufacturers towards resolving legal risks. As ongoing lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny continue to influence the industry, the talcum powder litigation remains a pivotal case study in product liability, consumer protection, and the quest for transparent health and safety standards.

Frequently Asked Questions