Legal Resources
Talcum Powder Litigation Updates From Missouri and California
Missouri Updates As CMBG3 Law reported in October, the Missouri Court of Appeals (Eastern District) surprised many litigators when it overturned a $72 million verdict that was awarded to plaintiff Jacqueline Fox in a Johnson & Johnson talcum powder ovarian cancer...
Massachusetts Appeals Court Supports Insurers Right to Control
On October 16, 2017 the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated a prior ruling that required OneBeacon Insurance Company (“OneBeacon “) to reimburse Celanese Corporation (“Celanese”) for defense costs incurred after OneBeacon agreed to defend without reservation. Celanese...
$417 Million Award In First California Talcum Powder Trial SET ASIDE By Judge
In August 2017, CMBG3 Law reported that a California jury returned a verdict against Johnson & Johnson in the amount of $417 million, ending the first California case tried to verdict against Johnson & Johnson in which it was alleged that the company’s talcum...
California Trial Alleging Mesothelioma Caused By Asbestos-Contaminated Talcum Powder Begins (Again)
CMBG3 Law reported last week that the first asbestos-contaminated talcum powder trial in California began trial, but was cut short two days into the trial as the judge declared a mistrial. This week, a new jury was seated and trial began yesterday. In the case,...
Missouri Court Says “Show Me” the Connection, Then Sets Aside $72 Million Plaintiff’s Talcum Powder Verdict
In February of 2016, a St. Louis jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Jacqueline Fox for $72 million. In the case, plaintiff alleged that she developed ovarian cancer from Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products. Johnson & Johnson appealed the...
Johnson & Johnson Loses Battle In New Jersey MDL, Wages Appellate Fight In California
CMBG3 Law previously reported on a verdict against Johnson & Johnson out of California in the amount of $417 million, which was the first California case tried to verdict against Johnson & Johnson in which it was alleged that the company’s talcum powder...
UPDATE – Mistrial In California Case Alleging Mesothelioma Caused By Asbestos-Contaminated Talcum Powder
CMBG3 Law reported yesterday on the start of the first asbestos-contaminated talcum powder trial in California. Later in the day, the Judge declared a mistrial and so a new jury will be picked and the trial will resume at a date to be determined. The reason for the...
Trial Begins In California Case Alleging Mesothelioma Caused By Asbestos-Contaminated Talcum Powder
CMBG3 Law has reported throughout the year on events in the pending talcum powder litigation, in which plaintiffs allege that talcum powder caused their ovarian or uterine cancer. Although the ovarian and uterine cancer cases have dominated the news, most recently in...
Asbestos-Contaminated Talc Plaintiffs’ Experts Precluded From Testifying
On September 25, 2017, two prominent plaintiffs' experts (Sean Fitzgerald, Geologist and Dr. Ronald Gordon, MD) were excluded from testifying in the asbestos case of Sally Brandt and Charles Brandt v. The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc., et al., Court of common Pleas of...
Company Receives $100,000 Grant From EPA To Develop Lead Particle Measurement Technology For Drinking Water
Given the events in recent years that have taken place in Flint, Michigan regarding lead particles in the community drinking water, there has been a significant uptick in news and attention paid to the potential for lead particles in drinking water sources to cause...
Florida Supreme Court Urged To Adopt Daubert Standard of Review For Expert Testimony
Since the 1993 United States Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, a majority of state courts in the United States have followed the standard of review established in Daubert for determining whether an expert’s testimony is admissible. The...
Missouri State Court Talcum Powder Trial May Proceed Despite Pending Legal Challenges
In June of 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued two rulings, both of which addressed whether plaintiffs can bring lawsuits in states in which the plaintiffs and defendants have little or no connection. The Supreme Court’s rulings made it clear that in cases...