TORRANCE – In a trial to decide if a Johnson & Johnson product caused a woman’s mesothelioma, the company's attorneys on Tuesday attempted to undercut the testimony of a plaintiff expert witness saying she had shaped her opinions on cosmetic talc powder only after becoming a paid witness.
“It was only in 2008 when you were being paid did you find that cosmetic talc causes mesothelioma, correct?” asked John Ewald, an attorney for Johnson & Johnson.
“It was the first time I gave that opinion, yes,” answered Dr. Jacqueline Moline, a New York occupational physician.
Ewald
Moline earlier testified that asbestos had been found in tests of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder.
The trial in Los Angeles Superior Court is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
Plaintiff Carolyn Weirick, a former school counselor, sued Johnson & Johnson claiming that the baby powder she used for 40 years caused her to develop mesothelioma, a rare and deadly cancer of the linings of the lungs. Her attorneys ask for $28 million in damages and allege Johnson & Johnson ignored findings of asbestos in the baby powder and an adult product called Shower to Shower. Her attorneys also allege the company twisted science to continue profiting and to preserve the company’s reputation.
Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson countered that cosmetic talc powder does not cause mesothelioma and that plaintiff's attorneys imagined asbestos where there was none.
Moline, who appeared for a second day of testimony, has been a frequent plaintiff witness in past talc powder trials.
Ewald exhibited a standards chart from 1992 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that stated “Substantial evidence is lacking to conclude that non-asbestos-form tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite (asbestos related minerals) present the same type or magnitude of health risks as asbestos.”
A central contention of Weirick’s attorneys is that tremolite and anthophyllite asbestos have been found in the baby powder.
Ewald asked Moline if her opinions on cosmetic talc powder had been influenced by an article in a study Health Hazards of Asbestos Exposure written by Dr. Irving Selikov, a 1960s researcher who said a link existed between asbestos exposure and lung problems.
“I hadn’t thought about this (Selikov) document with respect to this case,” Moline said. “I can make my opinions without this document.”
Ewald exhibited a 1987 document from Johnson & Johnson to Windsor Minerals, a Vermont-based mining company, which reported testing of 27 talc samples.
“No fibrous forms (asbestos) were observed,” the letter noted.
"See that?” Ewald said.
“Yes,” Moline said.
Moline told the court part of her work was to make known the history as it became known over past decades that asbestos exposure was linked to the development of mesothelioma.
“You didn’t talk about (cosmetic) talc use until 2008,” Ewald said.
“Yes,” Moline agreed.
Moline indicated she had been approached to evaluate asbestos exposure prior to 2008.
“Before 2008, you did not consider cosmetic talc for asbestos exposure?” Ewald asked.
“That’s right,” Moline said.
Moline said she had studied industrial usage of talc powder.
“It’s important to ask about all possible exposures, correct?” Ewald asked.
“Yes,” Moline said.
Moline agreed there had been no reported cases of mesothelioma among miners and millers of talc powder apart from a case in upstate New York.
Ewald asked her if Johnson & Johnson officials had attempted to influence the findings of a 1970s study of Italian talc called the Rubino Study.
“I’ve seen documents that they (Johnson & Johnson) assisted,” Moline said.
Moline added that Johnson & Johnson officials had offered to assist in the writing of the study conclusions.
“But you never saw that anything in the study was changed?” Ewald asked.
“I don’t know if those documents exist,” Moline said.
The case is one of hundreds pending across the country, most filed by women claiming the baby powder caused them to develop ovarian cancer. Mesothelioma is a much rarer disease with 3,200 cases reported annually in the U.S.
The Weirick lawsuit was first heard in September of last year in Pasadena but was inconclusive because of a deadlocked jury. The current trial to decide the issue was moved to Torrance and resumed Sept. 9.