On Friday, a Pennsylvania state-court jury in Philadelphia ordered Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) to pay $250,000 to the family of Gayle Emerson, finding the company liable in a case blaming its talc baby powder for her ovarian cancer. The verdict lands as the company also fights over whether jurors will hear scientific experts in the consolidated federal docket, including a New Jersey special master's recommendation that would let plaintiffs present causation testimony, a fight detailed in key expert testimony coverage.

Reuters reports jurors awarded $50,000 for compensatory damages and $200,000 as punitive damages after hearing claims that the company failed to warn despite long-running internal knowledge concerns. Erik Haas, the company's worldwide vice president of litigation, said the company will appeal and called the result "This token verdict reflects the jury's appreciation that the claims were meritless and divorced from the science,”

Why This Verdict Signals Broader Implications

The appeal posture in Pennsylvania mirrors the broader legal playbook the company has used across the talc docket, including repeated attempts to channel claims into bankruptcy proceedings. Those bankruptcy plans have been turned away three times in federal court, most recently in April of last year, and they had temporarily frozen many ovarian-cancer cases while the strategy was litigated.

Leigh O'Dell, the attorney at Beasley Allen representing Emerson's family, said the jury concluded that Johnson & Johnson's product and corporate actions played a direct role in Emerson's death. O'Dell added that although the damages awarded fell short of expectations, and were far below what they believe is needed to hold the company accountable, they plan to continue pursuing the case.

In the New Jersey federal proceedings, the battleground is less about a single damage number and more about what science the jury is allowed to consider. Retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, serving as a court-appointed special master, recommended that plaintiffs' experts be permitted to testify that use of the company's talc products can cause ovarian cancer, while also allowing company experts to counter that position.

Wolfson's work is advisory to U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp, who can accept or reject it after reviewing objections. The recommendation drew lines around the evidence, backing exclusion of some opinions, including links involving heavy metals and fragrance chemicals and a separate theory about inhaled talc traveling to the ovaries, while leaving other disputes for hearings later this month and in early February.

Are Talc Products Facing Their Final Trial?

As reported by Reuters, the Pennsylvania case is one of several state-court trials queued for the coming months. The company has said it will also appeal the January federal ruling that would allow plaintiffs to present expert testimony tying baby-powder use to ovarian cancer.

The Pennsylvania plaintiffs' timeline stretches back decades, with Emerson alleging she used the baby powder from 1969 to 2017 and sued in 2019. Court records say she died six months after filing at age 68, and her children continued the case after her death from metastatic ovarian cancer.

The state-court verdict arrives against a backdrop of other large talc outcomes, including a December 2025 Baltimore jury decision exceeding $1.5 billion tied to a claim of peritoneal mesothelioma from asbestos exposure in talc products. Before the bankruptcy efforts, the company's talc-trial results ranged from defense wins to blockbuster judgments, including a verdict that reached $4.69 billion before later appellate activity.

Escalating Legal Battles and Record Verdicts

This backdrop of legal challenges for Johnson & Johnson has been exacerbated by a recent record $1.5 billion verdict in Baltimore, where a jury ruled against the company and its subsidiary, ordering them to pay $59.84 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages to a plaintiff diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma after years of using their talc products. This substantial ruling adds to the mounting pressure on the company, which has faced over 67,000 lawsuits linked to alleged cancer claims.

Such large awards, including a previous case that concluded with a $40 million verdict for two women, reflect ongoing challenges for Johnson & Johnson as it battles similar allegations in various courts. As the company continues to assert the safety of its products and pursues appeals against recent judgments, it remains pivotal for them to navigate these legal waters effectively to mitigate potential financial liabilities.

The Surge Of Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Explained

The company is defending a massive inventory of talc cases in both state and federal venues, with court filings putting the count above 67,000 plaintiffs and the bulk centered on ovarian cancer allegations.

Haas has argued that judges have a gatekeeping role over that evidence, while the company continues to maintain its talc products are safe, asbestos-free and not a cause of cancer.

Johnson & Johnson has stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the US in 2020 and shifted to cornstarch. In the U.K., a separate filing reported in October 2025 involved about 3,000 claimants alleging the company knowingly sold baby powder contaminated with asbestos.

• No comments yet. Be the first to comment!