LOS ANGELES – A scientist called on behalf of plaintiff Carolyn Weirick in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson for the baby powder she claimed caused her mesothelioma said on Thursday asbestos fibers had been found in samples taken from the Italian and Vermont talc mines that supplied the company.
Mesothelioma is a fatal illness.
Live coverage of the trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court is being streamed courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
“Did you conclusively identify anthophyllite asbestos in these samples?” Jay Stuemke, Weirick’s attorney asked.
“Yes,” responded Dr. Steven Compton, a University of Georgia-trained researcher who works for MVA Scientific Consultants, a Duluth, Georgia-based microscopy lab specializing in the identification of materials.
“Did you find asbestos in every sample?” Stuemke asked.
“No,” Compton responded.
Eight of ten tests in one sampling of a talc mine in Val Chisone, Italy tested positive for asbestos contamination, Compton noted. Stuemke asked Compton how many samples in another sampling taken from talc mines in Vermont had tested positive.
He said six of the seven samples.
“That’s 85.7 percent of the Vermont talc samples you were provided with were positive for asbestos, correct?” Stuemke said.
“That’s correct,” Compton said.
The samples in question had been taken by a geologist and evaluated at MVA on the request of Imerys America, a mining company which purchased the Vermont talc mine from Johnson & Johnson in the 1980s and supplied the mineral to the baby powder company. Brad DeJardin an attorney with the Los Angeles law firm of Dentons has been retained to defend Imerys America in the case.
During his testimony, Compton said MVA is a team of scientists of different specialties who use their microscopes to study and identify solid materials, their physical properties and structure.
Stuemke asked Compton if talc with less than one-quarter percent asbestos in it were released into the air, what would be the result.
“Some could be less than a quarter percent and contain millions and millions of fibers per gram of material,” Compton said. “If that material were put into the air during normal use, it would result in a level of (asbestos) exposure above ambient levels.”
“How many asbestos fibers?” Stuemke asked.
The defense attorney for J&J objected claiming speculation.
“Sustained,” Judge Margaret Oldendorf ruled.
Stuemke reworded the question.
“Based on what you have reviewed, do you have an opinion of the number of fibers that could be released if the talc did not have any asbestos present?”
“Same objection,” the defense attorney called.
“Overruled!” Oldendorf said.
“It could be in the range of about a billion fibers,” Compton answered.
Powerful state-of-the-art microscopes such as the transmission electron microscope (TEM), their use and capabilities were discussed, although limits to their ability to detect asbestos were mentioned.
A slide projected for the jury read, “Some fibers cannot be identified as asbestos even though the measurements all indicate they could be asbestos.”
“Using this technique were you able to unequivocally identify asbestos fibers in Johnson & Johnson Italian and Vermont talc?” Stuemke asked.
“Yes,” Compton responded.
During the afternoon session on cross examination the defense attorney for Johnson & Johnson, Warrington Parker said, “I think we can agree that those Italian (asbestos) samples did not end up in a Johnson & Johnson baby powder bottle, correct?”
Objection was made by the plaintiff’s attorney and was sustained by Oldendorf.
Warrington reworded his question.
“If you found them (samples) on the ground, they wouldn’t be in the bottle, correct?”
“That’s correct,” Compton said.
“You did not test Johnson & Johnson cosmetic powder that was actually used?” Warrington asked.
“That’s correct,” Compton responded.
“You have not published a (scientific) paper about test methods for talc, correct?” Warrington asked.
“That’s correct,” Compton said.
“You’re not a medical doctor are you?” Warrington asked.
“That’s correct,” Compton answered.
“Not an epidemiologist?”
“That’s right,” Compton said.
“Not a toxicologist?” Warrington asked.
“That’s correct,” Compton said.
“Is it fair to say that as you sit here, you have not at all offered any opinion - that what you found causes mesothelioma?” Warrington asked.
“I’m not providing any medical opinion if that’s what you’re asking,” Compton said.
“Or health opinion, correct?” Warrington asked.
“That’s correct,” Compton answered.
Under further questioning Compton said an opinion on how talc impacts the body would be outside the scope of his expertise in this case.
A filmed deposition taken before the trial featured John Hopkins a former employee of Johnson & Johnson from 1976 to 2000 who now runs a toxicology firm. Hopkins has been labeled by plaintiffs in former trials as the top corporate spokesperson for the company.
The plaintiff’s attorney called attention to a letter to Johnson & Johnson written by a doctor in 1969 that warned of possible litigation if tremolite, a mineral that can contain asbestos, was not kept to a minimum in J&J powder.
Asked if this was an admission of asbestos, Hopkins responded, “He said (in the letter) if it (powder) contains any tremolite,” Hopkins corrected.