Legal landscape note: This article was originally published in 2016 and describes the law as it stood at that time. New Jersey law changes frequently.
You used talcum powder for years -- many families did, from women to babies -- and now lawsuits from throughout the country claim the product is linked to cancer. New Jersey has been chosen as the place to hear them: Judge Wolfson in the District Court of New Jersey will preside over the consolidated cases, which means the many out-of-state plaintiffs will most likely need to travel to New Jersey when it is time to testify. The suit "seeks compensation for personal injuries or wrongful death that resulted in ovarian or uterine cancer in women who applied talcum powder to their genital area and for failure to warn of the risk of cancer." Numerous suits have been filed over the years -- some dismissed, many still pending, and even more new ones -- and this litigation will most likely take a while to resolve.
Suits Linking Talc to Cancer Consolidated in NJ Federal Court
By Charles Toutant, October 5, 2016.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has picked New Jersey as the site to consolidate suits nationwide linking cancer to usage of talcum powder.
The Oct. 4 order transferred 11 pending cases and 43 more potential actions from around the country to U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey. Wolfson presides over Chakalos v. Johnson & Johnson, which was filed in November 2014, making it the most advanced suit of its kind in the nation. Her experience with that case makes her well-situated to structure the litigation to minimize delay and avoid duplication of discovery and motion practice, the panel said. Furthermore, New Jersey is the best venue for the suits because it is home to Johnson & Johnson, a defendant in the litigation, so that relevant witnesses and evidence are likely located in the state, the panel said.
The suits seek compensation for personal injuries or wrongful death that resulted from ovarian or uterine cancer in women who applied talcum powder to their genital area and for failure to warn of the risk of cancer. Some of the suits claim researchers have linked talc to cancer since the 1960s. The suits say manufacturers represented talcum powder as safe, failed to warn that it may cause cancer, and marketed the product to women with ads encouraging them to use such products to mask odors.
In addition to Johnson & Johnson, defendants include Sanofi US, Imerys Talc, Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Chattem. The plaintiffs used products such as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder, Shower to Shower and Gold Bond. Shower to Shower was previously made by Johnson & Johnson but recently sold to Valeant; Gold Bond was made by Chattem, which was acquired by Sanofi in 2010. Imerys mined the talc in the products, plaintiffs claim.
Among those who opposed consolidation were James Chakalos, who brought the New Jersey case on behalf of his wife, Janice Chakalos, who died of ovarian cancer at age 63 in 2012. He argued that his case is far advanced and would suffer delay if the MDL is granted. But the JPML said that even in the Chakalos case, discovery disputes remain and dispositive motions have yet to be filed.
The panel said it is "not convinced that the actions are too procedurally disparate to benefit from consolidation." In addition to the federal suits linking talcum powder to cancer, about 200 suits are designated multicounty litigation and are pending before Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson in Atlantic County. In September, Johnson dismissed two of those cases on summary judgment after ruling that plaintiffs' experts had failed to explain how talcum powder caused ovarian cancer.
Carmen Scott of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, and Michael Kuharski of Kuharski, Levitz & Giovinazzo of Staten Island, New York, who filed the Chakalos case, and attorney Don Barrett of Lexington, Mississippi, who filed the motion for consolidation, did not return calls seeking comment.