HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Court’s Rejection Of Evidence Countering ‘Willful’ Deception On Talc Ends J&J’s Appeal Streak

Executive Summary

Johnson & Johnson failed to convince a Missouri appeals court to overturn a lower court finding that plaintiffs presented clear and convincing evidence the talc in its Johnson’s Baby Powder causes ovarian cancer and that the firm knew and improperly influenced regulators to allow use of the ingredient.

You may also be interested in...



J&J’s Discontinuation Of Johnson’s Baby Powder Linked To April Federal Court Ruling

Legal experts note that J&J’s decision to end Johnson’s Baby Powder sales in the US and Canada closely followed a New Jersey federal court decision that largely denied the firm’s motions to bar testimony from plaintiff experts in multi-district talc litigation comprising around 16,000 cases.

J&J Talc Suit Dismissals: Plaintiffs Lack Causation Thread For Proof Quilt

Following two plaintiff victories and hefty damages awards in a Missouri circuit court earlier this year, J&J succeeded last week in having a pair of talc cancer cases dismissed in New Jersey due to plaintiffs’ lack of compelling causation evidence. With more than 1,000 talc suits against J&J still pending, the relative weight of expert testimonies – and venue – likely will continue to be significant factors in how they play out.

MoCRA’s Adulteration Ambiguity And FDA’s New Cosmetic Recall Authority: Attorney Weighs In

The US FDA should use guidance or rulemaking to clarify MoCRA provisions related to adulteration, Amin Wasserman Gurnani attorney Angela Diesch suggested at the Independent Beauty Association’s Cosmetics Convergence Spring Symposium. Attendees also sought her take on whether the agency’s new recall authority is likely to spell an increase in cosmetic product recalls.

Topics

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS150183

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel