South Carolina jury reaches $63.4 million verdict in Johnson & Johnson's latest talc case

CVN screenshot of closing argument by plaintiff's attorney Ben Adams

Columbia, SC – A South Carolina state court jury returned a $63.4 million verdict Thursday in the latest trial alleging that asbestos in Johnson & Johnson talcum powder caused cancer in a man. The entire trial was recorded and broadcast online from start to finish by the Courtroom View Network.

A Richland County jury awarded $32.6 million in damages to plaintiff Michael Perry, who claims he developed mesothelioma at age 53 after a lifetime of using Johnson's baby powder. The jury also awarded $30 million in punitive damages to Johnson & Johnson and $760,000 to co-defendant American Industrial Industries.

Perry's lawyers argued that J&J knew for years that its talc products contained asbestos but withheld that knowledge from consumers. J&J vigorously denied that its talc products contained asbestos, suggesting that Perry's years of working with asbestos-containing brake pads in his father's garage were a more likely cause of his exposure.

The full trial is available for unlimited on-demand viewing as part of a subscription to CVN's online trial video library. CVN's video library contains hundreds of civil trials featuring many of the best plaintiffs and defense attorneys from across the country, and also includes several cosmetic talc and asbestos cases in numerous jurisdictions.

After the plaintiffs concluded their trial, J&J waived its right to present a defense and the trial went directly to closing arguments. In a statement issued after the verdict, the company announced an immediate appeal.

“The court made a series of errors of judgment before and during the trial that prevented Johnson & Johnson – and the other defendant manufacturer – from presenting their defense and forced the company to file a motion to dismiss on a number of grounds,” said Erik Haas, vice president of litigation at J&J Worldwide. “We will immediately appeal and are confident that the ruling will be overturned, as are most dissenting rulings that lack legal or scientific foundation.”

“The verdict is inconsistent with decades of independent scientific research confirming that talc is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer,” Haas continued. “For this reason, the vast majority of jurors rejected the plaintiffs' law firms' misrepresentations regarding talc.”

Perry was represented by the Texas-based law firm of Dean Omar Branham Shirley, which has a string of recent litigation victories in talc cases, including a recent $260 million verdict in Oregon in a trial also broadcast by CVN and a $45 million verdict in Illinois. He was also represented locally by the South Carolina law firm of Kassel McVey.

Dean Omar's attorney Trey Branham told CVN after the trial that his team appreciated the jury's work.

“We are incredibly grateful that this jury heard the evidence and understood that JNJ's actions are unacceptable and sent that message to them,” he said.

Branham noted that J&J has “never made a meaningful settlement offer” and clarified that this ruling in a talc mesothelioma case is unlikely to impact the recently announced $6.5 billion settlement in J&J's talc lawsuits, which related exclusively to ovarian cancer cases.

“JNJ has stated that they intend to continue to pursue mesothelioma cases in court and to remove them from any settlement/bankruptcy related to the ovarian cancer cases,” he said.

Branham also said J&J's pending appeal would contradict the message the company wanted to convey to jurors during the trial.

“During the penalty phase, JNJ's attorneys stated that 'JNJ heard the jury.' While we have serious doubts about that, we hope that's true and not just lip service to keep the amount of punitive damages down,” he said. “We'll see if JNJ appeals or if it really did 'hear' the jury as it claims.”

Branham stressed that his firm intends to vigorously pursue J&J's talc cases in court, pointing to upcoming trials in California, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

“Our firm was founded to take on the biggest white collar criminals, and that's what it has always done,” he said. “While we are always open to discussions about reasonable solutions for our clients, we are committed to holding JNJ accountable when they choose not to work with our clients.”

The case is titled “Michael Perry v. American International Industries et al.” and is pending in the 5th District Court of South Carolina under case number 2023-CP-40-04072.

Email David Siegel at [email protected]