Business Medical Dialogues
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • Medical Dialogues
    • Speciality Dialogues
    • Education Dialogues
    • Medical Jobs
    • Medical Matrimony
    • MD Brand Connect
    Business Medical Dialogues
    • News
        • Financial Results
        • Hospitals & Diagnostics
        • IT / Health Venture
        • Implants / Devices
        • Insurance
        • Key Movement
        • Pharmaceuticals
        • Policy
        • Technology
        • pharma-news
    • blog
    LoginRegister
    Business Medical Dialogues
    LoginRegister
    • Home
    • News
      • Financial Results
      • Hospitals & Diagnostics
      • IT / Health Venture
      • Implants / Devices
      • Insurance
      • Key Movement
      • Pharmaceuticals
      • Policy
      • Technology
      • pharma-news
    • blog
    • Home
    • Latest News
    • Johnson and Johnson...

    Johnson and Johnson jury asks judge to slap cancer warning on baby powder: Report

    Written by Ruby Khatun Khatun Published On 2018-05-27T10:00:01+05:30  |  Updated On 27 May 2018 10:00 AM IST
    Johnson and Johnson jury asks judge to slap cancer warning on baby powder: Report

    If Johnson and Johnson (J&J) won’t put a warning on its baby powder that it may be tainted with asbestos, some jurors were ready to do it for them.


    A California jury weighing J&J’s punishment over its handling of its iconic baby powder asked a judge if they could force the company to warn consumers that its Johnson’s Baby Powder could be contaminated with asbestos.


    After the judge said no, the jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages on Thursday to Joanne Anderson, a 68-year-old woman who claimed her deadly cancer was caused by asbestos in J&J’s baby powder. A day earlier, the jury had awarded $21.7 million to Anderson, finding J&J 67% responsible for her mesothelioma.


    J&J has steadfastly maintained that its baby powder has never contained asbestos and rejected calls to put a warning on its white bottles known the world over. J&J plans to appeal the verdict.


    A court wouldn’t have the power to order a company to add or change warnings on its products, said David Logan, law professor at Roger Williams University in Bristol, Rhode Island. “It’s not a remedy that can be ordered in a damages action,’’ he said.


    The fact that the jury asked the question at all “is a bad sign for J&J,’’ added law professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond in Virginia. “That should make J&J wake up if that’s the way juries are looking at these cases.’’


    J&J is facing thousands of lawsuits alleging its talc products are connected to cancer, primarily ovarian, but with a growing number claiming asbestos-related mesothelioma. The suits center on the claim that the company failed to warn of risks.


    The jury query was highlighted in the press release issued by Anderson’s lawyers at Simon Greenstone Panatier. “The question shows that the jury understood that J&J knew about the danger of asbestos in their baby powder and chose to do nothing,’’ David Greenstone, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Thursday in an email.


    After the verdict, jurors outside the courtroom cited a 1969 company document related to “project code 101,” in which J&J doctors warned of the risk of asbestos in talc, and possible litigation in the future.


    One juror who asked not to be identified said the evidence showed that J&J knew it had a problem in 1969 and kept marketing its baby powder. He said he advocated for a bigger damages award.


    Article source: Bloomberg

    asbestosbaby powdercancerJoanne AndersonJohnson and JohnsonJohnson’s Baby PowderjudgeJurymesotheliomapunishmentWarning
    Source : Bloomberg

    Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

    Ruby Khatun Khatun
    Ruby Khatun Khatun
      Show Full Article
      Next Story
      Similar Posts
      NO DATA FOUND

      Popular Stories

      • Email: info@medicaldialogues.in
      • Phone: 011 - 4372 0751

      Website Last Updated On : 13 Oct 2022 5:14 AM GMT
      Company
      • About Us
      • Contact Us
      • Our Team
      • Reach our Editor
      • Feedback
      • Submit Article
      Ads & Legal
      • Advertise
      • Advertise Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
      • Privacy Policy
      • Editorial Policy
      • Comments Policy
      • Disclamier
      Medical Dialogues is health news portal designed to update medical and healthcare professionals but does not limit/block other interested parties from accessing our general health content. The health content on Medical Dialogues and its subdomains is created and/or edited by our expert team, that includes doctors, healthcare researchers and scientific writers, who review all medical information to keep them in line with the latest evidence-based medical information and accepted health guidelines by established medical organisations of the world.

      Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription.Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. You can check out disclaimers here. © 2025 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

      © 2025 - Medical Dialogues. All Rights Reserved.
      Powered By: Hocalwire
      X
      We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok