Big verdict doesn't guarantee extra wins for plaintiffs in talc-cancer instances

The $72 million verdict this week against Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) in a U.S. case alleging hyperlinks among talc-primarily based powder and ovarian cancer has induced international headlines, social media buzz and calls to legal professionals from would-be plaintiffs.

however the attention-grabbing judgment is no guarantee destiny plaintiffs can be able to convince juries the organisation's products prompted their illnesses.

about 1,200 comparable instances are pending, broadly speaking in Missouri and New Jersey kingdom courts, but the information are special in every one.

and even in instances with comparable proof and expert testimony, juries in mass personal-harm litigation can

come to distinctive conclusions.

whilst the survivors of Jacqueline Fox were presented $seventy two million with the aid of a St. Louis jury Monday, jurors in a federal court docket motion in South Dakota - the handiest other talc case to go to trial - determined in 2013 that J&J have been negligent but declined to award damages to plaintiff Deane Berg.

Like Fox, Berg alleged her ovarian most cancers was because of her many years-long use of J&J's talc-powder products for feminine hygiene, and jurors in both cases heard testimony approximately research linking talc to cancer risks.

but, unlike Fox, who passed away numerous months before the trial began, Berg became in remission at the time of the trial, consistent with court files.

further to authentic variations amongst instances, venue can have an effect on consequences. a few country courts are taken into consideration greater plaintiff-friendly than federal courts, which have stricter guidelines for the admission of proof and expert testimony, said legal professionals worried in the litigation.

One juror inside the Missouri case, Jerome Kendrick, stated in an interview with Reuters that he and other jurors had been specifically swayed by testimony from plaintiffs' health workers and files showing J&J employees discussing talc powder's feasible most cancers risk.

"The hassle I had is that, according to inter workplace files, J&J became aware of the potential worries," Kendrick stated. "And it genuinely gave the impression of in place of trying to investigate, they began speaking approximately how to fight what might finally be a court docket case."

J&J has stated that "decades of sound technology" prove that talc is secure. The agency on Tuesday issued a declaration expressing sympathy for Fox’s family however disagreeing with the decision. It also stated it is exploring its submit-trial alternatives.