This Mesothelioma blog by Throneberry Law Group offers information and commentary for residents of Nationwide. 0ur team has recovered billions for those suffering from mesothelioma or an asbestos-related illness.
A California state jury is slated to hear opening arguments in an asbestos talcum powder lawsuit filed against pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson over allegations that the company knew for decades about the health risks associated with its talc-based products. The asbestos cancer lawsuit names Johnson & Johnson and its supplier, Imerys Talc USA, as defendants and seeks compensation for past and future medical bills, lost wages, and the pain and suffering of living with the mesothelioma cancer diagnosis.
According to the talcum powder asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Alameda County California Superior Court, the plaintiff developed mesothelioma from years of using asbestos-contaminated talcum powder products developed and manufactured by Johnson & Johnson with materials sourced by Imerys Talc USA. The lawsuit claims that despite knowing for decades about the health risks of asbestos exposure from tainted talcum powder, Johnson & Johnson continued to market and sell these same products without any warning labels for consumers.
The trial is the first one of this type scheduled this year against Johnson & Johnson and the first since a report by Reuters which showed that the company knew about positive asbestos tests on its talcum powder sourced by Imerys USA. That report looked at thousands of pages of internal Johnson & Johnson company files that showed both company tests and those conducted by outside labs confirmed the presence of potentially deadly levels of asbestos in its talc supply.
A recent report by Reuters claims that pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson knew for decades about the risk of asbestos contaminating its talc-based products, but did nothing to warn consumers about the dangers of exposure to the deadly carcinogen. Those claims come after the news outlet examined thousands of pages of internal company documents going back to the 1970s through the early 2000s that show Johnson & Johnson withheld information about asbestos from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
According to the article, Johnson & Johnson’s first recorded knowledge of potential asbestos contamination in its talc comes from 1957 and 1958 reports by a consulting lab describing contaminants in its products from the supplier. Those contaminants were described by the consulting lab as fibrous and acicular tremolite, one of the six-naturally occuring forms of asbestos.
Over the next several decades, other reports by Johnson & Johnson’s own scientists, outside consulting labs, and suppliers would show similar findings, including one identifying contaminants in the talc as “fiberform” and “rods.” Despite these obvious red flags, Johnson & Johnson chose not to put any warning labels on its talc-based products and allowed its potentially deadly items to remain on the market.
A federal jury recently handed down a $32.7 million award to the widow of a North Carolina man who passed away from a mesothelioma his estate claimed was due to asbestos exposure facilitated by hazardous conditions created by the defendants in the case. The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit named a pipe insulation supplier, Covil Corporation, as the main defendant in the case, alleging the company knowingly supplied carcinogenic materials for workers at the Firestone tire factory where the victim worked.
According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in August 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, the now deceased victim in the case was frequently exposed to deadly asbestos fibers while working at a Firestone tire factory from 1975 to 1995. The mesothelioma lawsuit claims that exposure took place due to asbestos-contaminated insulation supplied by the defendant, Covil Corporation.
Despite knowing full well the dangers its asbestos insulation products posed to workers at the Firestone tire plant, Covil Corporation made no attempt to provide warnings about the dangers of exposure to asbestos in its products, according to the lawsuit. After five days of testimony, the federal jury took just two hours to decide in favor of the victim and awarded his surviving spouse $32.7 million in compensatory damages for the harm brought on by the defendant’s negligence.
A Pennsylvania couple recently filed an asbestos cancer lawsuit in a Philadelphia court against several companies over allegations that the defendants knowingly manufactured and sold carcinogenic talc-based products that caused the victim’s cancer diagnosis. The asbestos lawsuit names cosmetics and pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, its talc supplier Imerys Talc USA, Rite Aid Corporation, and Walgreen Co. as defendants and seeks compensation for the victim’s injuries.
According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, the female plaintiff developed ovarian cancer after years of using talcum powder products manufactured by Johnson & Johnson with contaminated talc sourced by Imerys Talc USA. The plaintiff further alleges that she purchased the defective products at both Rite Aid and Walgreens stores throughout the years, which knew or should have known Johnson & Johnson’s products posed a danger to the public.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit in this case is one of thousands Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc USA are facing across the country over allegations that the companies sold asbestos-contaminated talcum powder products for decades but did not put warning labels on items like Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. Some of those cases claim the victims developed ovarian cancer as a result, like the plaintiff in this case, while others assert their mesothelioma cancer diagnosis came about as a result of asbestos exposure from talc.
If you are a firefighter, you know you have a job fraught with risks, but you may not have realized that mesothelioma is one of them. Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive type of cancer associated with asbestos exposure, and firefighters are about twice as likely to develop it than the general population, according to a study completed in 2015 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Because asbestos was included in many building materials manufactured through the 1980s, you can be exposed to it at fires in people’s homes, local businesses or area industrial sites. As the asbestos filled products burn they break down, dispersing asbestos particles in the air and smoke.
In addition to your exposure at fires, you also can be exposed to asbestos at your fire hall from contamination on tools and gear or the construction materials of the hall itself. Some early firefighting gear was even made with asbestos.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon take up arguments in an asbestos cancer lawsuit that could set an important precedent not only for other mesothelioma lawsuit plaintiffs but other innocent people harmed by the negligence of companies that failed to prevent foreseeable injuries. The case was brought by two surviving relatives of a man who developed mesothelioma while working aboard Navy ships, coming in contact with industrial gaskets made with deadly asbestos fibers as part of his job duties.
According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, entitled Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, the defendants in the case manufactured equipment for Navy ships that did not contain asbestos themselves, but required replaceable parts manufactured by third parties that used asbestos in the construction. The plaintiffs have asked the court to hold Air and Liquid Systems liable for the victim’s passing because they claim the company knew that its products would need integrated parts manufactured with asbestos gaskets and seals by third parties.
Specifically, the plaintiffs asked the justices hearing the case to apply the “foreseeability” standard of negligence commonly used in maritime injury cases which holds that Air and Liquid Systems could reasonably foresee that aftermarket parts containing deadly chemicals could cause harm. On the other hand, the defense has asked the judges to apply a more simplified standard in tort law, holding that the duty of the party to warn rests with that party that is in the best position to control or avoid the harm, in this case, the gasket maker.