Faulty science claims lengthy talc lawsuit

For fifteen years now, Johnson & Johnson’s talc lawsuit has continued to play out in our nation’s legal system, adding further evidence to the unfortunate truth that the wheels of justice turn slowly. This mass tort, which involves allegations that the company’s baby powder products cause ovarian cancer, recently moved to Texas in hopes that a Lone Star forum will facilitate a quick resolution.

The legal community and other intense observers of this monumental trial tend to remain gripped by this reality TV saga as they speculate on how it will play out and the crucial role the Texas legal system will play in ensuring a final verdict. However, the courts do not have to make decisions from the bench. Johnson & Johnson has released a proposed settlement plan to provide plaintiffs with a significant win by guaranteeing the financial compensation they sought when the lawsuit was first filed.

Johnson & Johnson’s proposed plan provides what any objective observer would consider a more than fair settlement for those affected by J&J’s talc products. The settlement offer guarantees that plaintiffs will collectively receive as much as $6.4 billion in financial compensation. Another advantage is that plaintiffs hold the key to deciding the fate of their case, giving them the ultimate decision-making power. What provides even more certainty about a quick outcome is that most of the plaintiffs’ lawyers involved fully support the plan.

If the mass tort had been handled correctly from the start, especially by preventing erroneous scientific claims from being admitted into evidence, the case would not have taken as long as it has. Indeed, anyone following this case has witnessed numerous admissions of incorrect scientific claims in the court record, overwhelming the judges and their ability to make good, efficient decisions.

From the outset, the integrity of the scientific evidence presented in court should have been rigorously checked. Well-vetted scientific evidence ensures that court decisions are based on reliable and accurate information. However, in this lawsuit, we have seen questionable scientific claims allowed in court, muddying the waters and complicating the legal process.

The introduction of unproven testimony and opinions has prolonged the case, hampered judicial efficiency and eroded public confidence. By ensuring that only credible, well-vetted scientific claims are considered, the courts can better serve justice and provide timely solutions for those who suffer. Fortunately, the proposed plan not only ensures that plaintiffs are properly rewarded, but also ensures that junk science does not further influence this case.

With its solid legal framework, Texas is now positioned to demonstrate its ability to effectively and honorably handle high-profile cases like this, while perhaps creating a framework for other states to follow. Supporting this plan benefits all parties involved.

Gerard Scimeca is chairman and co-founder of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy/InsideSources.com.