| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Judge tosses $417M award against Johnson & Johnson |
| 2017-10-21 |
| LOS ANGELES (AP) ‐ A judge on Friday tossed out a $417 million jury award to a woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer by using Johnson & Johnson talc-based baby powder for feminine hygiene. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson granted the company’s request for a new trial, saying there were errors and jury misconduct in the previous trial that ended with the award two months ago. Nelson also ruled that there wasn’t convincing evidence that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice and the award for damages was excessive. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #13 Courts have standards for evidence, and you must prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence. "Might be possible" doesn't cut it. Unless you're trying to overturn constitutional immigration laws, invalidate legal elections, or indict someone of supposed collusion with russkies for something or other. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2017-10-21 18:31 |
| #12 Always difficult to bring these cases. Courts have standards for evidence, and you must prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence. "Might be possible" doesn't cut it. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2017-10-21 15:59 |
| #11 A lot of gals powder their poozle. If baby powder was a cancer hazard, you would expect a *bleep*load of cases considering how prevalent exposure is. Same sort of thing with cell phones causing brain cancer. With the number of people exposed, you'd expect an epidemic if there was anything to it. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2017-10-21 15:15 |
| #10 Slightly is the key word here. "Exposure to talc is unlikely to be a primary factor in most cases of ovarian cancer," writes John Whysner, MD, PhD, a researcher with the American Health Foundation in Valhalla, N.Y. He says there is not enough information to clearly say whether there is a causal relationship. Whysner reviewed over 50 papers on the subject, written over the past 30 years, for the analysis published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-10-21 14:45 |
| #9 Glen it's unsoluble in water Yeah, neither is asbestos in the lung(s). "in its natural form, some talc contains asbestos" |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2017-10-21 13:58 |
| #8 Ooops. #5 not previous. Glen it's unsoluble in water |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-10-21 13:30 |
| #7 ^:-) |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-10-21 13:18 |
| #6 The only cancer path I can think of is talc irritating lung tissue (as asbestos does), then metastasizing to ovaries. Talc is not a chemically reactive mineral though its small partical size could conceivably make it physically reactive, but how to transport??? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2017-10-21 12:40 |
| #5 Sorry, I was referring that there is a physical path via the uterus to the ovaries that talc can work its way through. But yes, I'm not sure what biochemistry role talc would have in cancer formation if there is in fact any. |
| Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance 2017-10-21 11:32 |
| #4 "Do not take internally" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2017-10-21 07:40 |
| #3 (a) I been studying female anatomy for 50+ years. (b) It's a question of biochemistry and not anatomy, seeker. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-10-21 05:24 |
| #2 Study female anatomy and you'll see how it might be possible. |
| Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance 2017-10-21 05:12 |
| #1 she developed ovarian cancer by using Johnson & Johnson talc-based baby powder for feminine hygiene ?????????????????? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-10-21 02:48 |