قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Judicial ruling could help J & J defeat St. Louis speech

Judicial ruling could help J & J defeat St. Louis speech



(Reuters) – A Supreme Court in Missouri on speech can reduce liability and the number of major attempts Johnson & Johnson face charges of their talc products, including baby powders, cause cancer.

The court is likely to offer some interception to the health care conglomerate when it comes to increasing pressure on the safety of its talc products, some defense lawyers said. The company revealed in its annual report on Wednesday that it had received claims from the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with talc disputes.

However, some case law lawyers played down the effect of the court.

It was a trial in St. Louis 22nd Circuit Court, held by 21

plaintiffs outside the city, whose cases were linked to a single St. Louis resident, who in July produced a record of 4.69 billion talc against J & J. The company faces several more such lawsuits in St. Louis.

But on February 13, Missouri's Supreme Court decided in a separate talc case that allowed a non-resident to participate in unified cases, "a clear and direct violation" of the state law that impedes the use of interconnection – combines two or more. Several cases – to allow courts to hear cases that they otherwise could not.

Most courts can only hear cases involving the plaintiff or defendant from the state or alleged damages arising within their jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court upheld these restrictions in a decision of 2017.

But the court in St. Louis had allowed outside residents to continue to sue on the Jersey's New Jersey-based side through liberal use of ties. In the case that presented the verdict in July, 18 of the plaintiffs outside Missouri were three and three were from outside the city of St. Louis. Of the approximately 700 talc cases filed in St. Louis only involves 40 people in Missouri, according to court regulations.

About February 13 decision closes off St. The Louis Court of External Claims, J&J can have a stronger hand defense itself in less talc cases spread among potentially less affectionate state and federal courts.

"There is no real way to read this decision than this court and clearly states that you cannot agree to the claim if the damage did not occur in the arena," said Mark Cheffo, a New York defense product liability defense attorney. is not involved in talc disputes.

J & J in a statement said it was happy with the decision. "A claim that is correct before a court cannot provide grounds for entering into a trial other claims that are not. We believe that the decision is clearly correct, and we continue to believe that science does not support the claimant's claims," ​​the company said. declined further comments.

Impact unclear

Some accusing lawyers said the February 13 decision was not as definite as Mr Cheffo suggests.

"If respondents celebrate this judgment as the end of St. Louis mass destruction, they have not read the entire Missouri case law," said Eric Holland, a St. Louis-based lawyer attorney involved in talc disputes.

Mr. The Netherlands pointed to a decision by the Missouri High Court in 2016 that upheld a $ 38 million verdict in a liability that the defendant claimed had been wrongly accepted. The court states that the result is that even an incorrect connection did not make the trial unfair to the defendant.

Although the 2016 decision involved a case that was already decided, Holland and other case owners said that they planned to argue for their fair analysis even for out-of-state talc claims in case yet to go to trial. They said they would also argue that joining the cases was the most effective use of legal resources.

Defense attorneys said the decision on February 13 was likely to involve termination or termination of out-of-state allegations from four upcoming multiple-case cases in St. Louis. Two of the cases were suspended by the Missouri Supreme Court before its verdict.

Mr. Holland and other attorneys lawyers said they would challenge J&J requests to cancel or dismiss speech cases by arguing on February 13 the decision did not bridge the 2016 ruling.

Mr. Cheffo said the 2016 decision would make it harder for J&J to turn to the July verdict and its record penalty for the company to prove that the bond led to an unfair trial.

"Forum shopping" through out-of-state applicants

St. The Louis Court has been a place for more talc samples and has seen greater judgments than any other jurisdiction. Outside St. Louis has the only other significant speech laws against J & J so far come into court proceedings filed by individual plaintiffs in New Jersey and California, where the company is currently facing the jury's judgments totaling $ 142 million.

A jury in Los Angeles delivered a talc judge of $ 417 million against J & J in 2017, but the judge threw the award weeks later that is not supported by the evidence. All speech conversations against J & J are in appeal.

St. The Louis Court has a history of issuing large corporate injuries and has often been criticized by corporate groups to allow "forum shopping" of out-of-state plaintiffs.

Although J & J faces some trials brought by individuals in other jurisdictions, the multiplaintiff is St. Louis falls the biggest and has the most potential to produce another billion dollars poetry.

The applicants claim that talc in Johnson's baby powder and Other J & J products cause ovarian cancer, or that asbestos contamination in talc makes ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. Asbestos is a known carcinogenic association with mesothelioma.

J & J and its speech provider, Imerys Talc America, a co-author of the disputes, deny claims and say that many studies and tests by regulators worldwide have shown that their talk is safe and

Reuters on December 14 published a report describing that J & J knew that talc in their raw and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos from the 1970s to the early 2000s – the test result that it did not reveal to regulators or consumers.

J & J currently holds about 13,000 talks over talc, most of which have been consolidated in federal courts in New Jersey. Many lawyers have been struggling to hold cases outside the federal court, which they consider to be beneficial to corporate defendants.

Three lawyers have rejected claims that Johnson & Johnson powder was damaged with asbestos or caused the plaintiff's mesothelioma. Five other juries have failed to reach judgments, resulting in miscarriage.

In a statement, Imerys Talc America said that the Missouri Court confirmed legal arguments it has made in trials over the past four years. The company was filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on February 13, and said it was missing the financial gap to defend itself against speech conversations.

                    


Source link