ARTICLE
28 August 2020

NJ Court Revives Suits Alleging J&J Talc Caused Cancer

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
A New Jersey state appeals court revived a pair of suits against Johnson & Johnson on Wednesday, August 5th, alleging J&J talc products caused two women to develop ovarian cancer.
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

A New Jersey state appeals court revived a pair of suits against Johnson & Johnson on Wednesday, August 5th, alleging J&J talc products caused two women to develop ovarian cancer. The appeals court stated the trial court judge was wrong in dismissing the opinions of the plaintiffs' experts.

In the court opinion, the three-judge panel held Atlantic County Judge Nelson C. Johnson's assessment of the opinions offered by Dr. Graham Colditz and Dr. Daniel Cramer was based solely on their credibility, a judgment which his beyond his duties. By using the judgments provided by the defendants' experts and criticisms of the plaintiffs' experts in his opinion, the panel stated that Judge Johnson overstepped his judiciary duties by solely trusting the defendants' experts over the plaintiffs. The panel opinion noted that verifying the credibility of an expert's findings is not the responsibility of a judge.

With the reinstatement of Dr. Cramer and Dr. Colditz's expert testimony a dispute of material fact exists, and the panel ruled the summary judgment must be reversed so the case can continue.

View full court opinion (PDF)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More