As part of the pretrial proceedings for about 11,000 federal high court cases against their talc baby powder, Johnson and Johnson have urged the court to discredit the opinion of 22 expert witnesses presented by the plaintiffs and ultimately dismiss all the cases. Judge Freda Wolfson, the District Judge at the United States court in Trenton, New Jersey, is in charge of the pretrial proceedings of all the federal cases.
J & J faces over 14,000 lawsuits alleging that their iconic baby powder caused ovarian cancer and/or mesothelioma. The cases currently in a multidistrict litigation under the purview of Judge Wolfson are majorly related to the ovarian cancer claims. The pretrial proceedings involve a Daubert hearing; the standard procedure for considering the soundness of the scientific methods employed by the expert witnesses in a federal case. The verdict could be J and J’s ticket out of almost 80% of the outstanding baby powder lawsuits.
What’s the purpose of the Daubert hearing?
During the hearing, the attorneys from Johnson and Johnson challenged the scientific principles of the plaintiff’s witnesses, arguing that they cannot be relied upon to prove that talc baby powder causes cancer. Asides listening to the attorneys and witnesses from both sides, Wolfson is expected to review the studies as well as other evidence put forward by both legal teams before arriving at a decision.
Although the judge’s verdict could take a while, the decision would have a huge impact on both parties’ cases. Blocking all the experts would be considered a victory for J & J as that could mean dismissing all the outstanding cases. If she decides to admit their testimony, however, the 11,000 plus cases could proceed to trial and that’ll be a nightmare for J & J. Traditionally, companies that have had such a mammoth number of cases tend to settle to avoid the rigors of going to court.
The more likely outcome is that she prevents some of the witnesses from testifying. If this happens, some of the lawsuits would be dropped while others would be reshaped and continued. The judge could also send the cases back to their home courts or arrange a bellwether trial to ascertain the solidity of the plaintiffs’ as well as J & J’s arguments.
When can we expect a decision?
Although the proceedings have been concluded in the early part of August, it could take some time before the judge arrives at a decision. The judge has to wait for both parties to submit up to 80 pages of written statements. The pieces must be submitted not more than 45 days after the transcript of the hearings are made available. She would also need to review the statements and consider all available evidence.
The start date of all the trials, if there’ll be any would depend on the outcome of the Daubert hearing. The judge’s decision on the witnesses or evidence can also be appealed by any of the aggrieved parties and this could further delay possible trials. Whatever happens, Johnson and Johnson would be hoping to nip this in the bud as quickly as they can. The company takes pride in being family-friendly and a case of this magnitude would no doubt put a dent in their image.
Tracy Everhart
Tracy Everhart is the Editor for Drug Law Journal. A highly-trained and certified medical professional, Tracy is also an accomplished medical writer. After spending years on the front lines of the medical profession, Tracy now devotes her expertise and skills to researching and reporting on new drugs and devices that enter the market, as well as their side-effects and the real-life stories involved. Prior to joining Drug Law Journal, Tracy wrote for benchmark online healthcare resources focused on families and, in particular, women’s health issues. Tracy holds post-graduate degrees from both the American College of Healthcare Sciences and the Yale School of Nursing. She is also a graduate of both Hampshire College, where she studied microbiology and the University of South Carolina school of nursing.