Are you ignorant of the facts of this case? Perhaps you’re pro asbestos? Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j?
A whole bunch of these cases assert that even pure talc (uncontaminated with asbestos) causes ovarian cancer, for which there is basically no evidence at all. Nor is there much evidence that talc actually ever contained much asbestos; especially bearing in mind that asbestos is naturally occurring at levels consistent with us inhaling several thousand fibers per day.
>Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j?
Hmm, yes, I'm definitely the one showing the signs of bias here.
They knew of the increased risks and asbestos levels, and even when they finally agreed to stop selling talc in the usa, they continued to just sell it overseas until their supply ran out. This wasn't just a random mixup.
“A whole bunch of these cases” is hand waving that signals you didn’t read about the case at hand. J&J knew of asbestos contamination. That is what the current case asserts.
On the contrary; I have been following this topic for a fairly long time. Have you read any of the other cases?
The big talc litigation started in the early 2010s, and the asbestos contamination theory only really surfaced in the latter part of the decade.
J&J is winning more of these cases than it is losing, and appeal courts are also overturning some of the decisions. Of course, it's all way too late due to the Wisconsin verdict and the loss in the court of public opinion.
> On the contrary; I have been following this topic for a fairly long time. Have you read any of the other cases?
Like the 2018 case where the jury deemed J&J liable for 5 billion? (cut to 2 in appeals).
> The big talc litigation started in the early 2010s, and the asbestos contamination theory only really surfaced in the latter part of the decade.
The length of the litigation doesn't matter. Big Tobacco was litigated into the ground over decades. The claim is that the manufacture of talc baby powder lends itself to contamination with asbestos (a carcinogen) and that J&J knew about it but continued selling. They're losing on THOSE grounds.
> J&J is winning more of these cases than it is losing, and appeal courts are also overturning some of the decisions. Of course, it's all way too late due to the Wisconsin verdict and the loss in the court of public opinion.
The wins v. loses don't matter when the damages of the loses are billions. Unless you think that the loses will converge to zero (which is a pipe dream).
You don't attempt to make a shell corp with a capped funding agreement so that a bankruptcy court has limited room to work with if you think you're going to be vindicated in the long run.
The reason why they're trying to do this is because it's a lost case and they have such wide ranging legal exposure that it's going to be death by 1000 cuts.
>Like the 2018 case where the jury deemed J&J liable for 5 billion? (cut to 2 in appeals).
... that is literally "the Wisconsin case" I mentioned in my post?
Look: I said a whole bunch of these cases don't even involve asbestos. That is true. It's a matter of record and if you want to do some basic research, you will discover that: these are the earlier talc cases from the 2013-2016 timeframe.
>The claim is that the manufacture of talc baby powder lends itself to contamination with asbestos (a carcinogen) and that J&J knew about it but continued selling. They're losing on THOSE grounds.
They're also winning on those grounds, more so than they're losing. Never mind that, even if true, those facts don't establish a good case unless there's actually a causal link between the level of contamination involved and the incidence of ovarian cancer. There is no good quality science (i.e. the cohort studies rather than the case-control ones) available that demonstrates a link between talc usage and ovarian cancer.
>if you think you're going to be vindicated in the long run.
It doesn't matter whether J&J gets vindicated in the long run - by which I assume you mean that we discover there is no causal link between talc and ovarian cancer and that the science promulgated by the plaintiffs attorneys was junk. They're guaranteed to take billions in losses because they've exhausted their appeals in at least one of the big cases. That was actually my point when I said it's too late.
> ... that is literally "the Wisconsin case" I mentioned in my post?
A sorry. I know it as the Missouri case because it was a state ruling in Missouri.
> Look: I said a whole bunch of these cases don't even involve asbestos. That is true. It's a matter of record and if you want to do some basic research, you will discover that: these are the earlier talc cases from the 2013-2016 timeframe.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna948016