In a trial to determine if Johnson & Johnson baby powder caused a man’s cancer, attorneys defending the company on Tuesday used Dr. William Longo’s own prior words against him in an attempt to discredit the plaintiff expert witness.
Longo countered by saying his prior opinions on whether the baby powder contained asbestos were “dead wrong.”
“In a deposition in May of 2002 you said that asbestos in baby powder was not found,” said defense attorney Allison Brown.
“That’s what the deposition says,” Longo answered. “That was my opinion at the time.”
Longo added that he had changed his opinion based on new information later in the 2000s.
“If you’re a good scientist you do that,” Longo said. “I was dead wrong then (2002).”
The trial in the Alameda Superior Court is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
For a second week, the trial and witness questioning has been conducted remotely because a participant tested positive for the COVID virus. A return in-person to the courtroom is expected Wednesday.
Valadez is suing Johnson & Johnson and other corporations including retailers Safeway and Walmart, plus LTL Management Company, claiming exposure to talc powder for 23 years between 1998 and 2022 caused his mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the linings of the lungs.
Valadez has pericardial mesothelioma, the rarest of three types of the disease. The other two are pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma.
Johnson & Johnson has faced 40,000 lawsuits nationally over a number of recent years and in 2023 switched from using talc powder worldwide to using corn starch in its baby powder. Experts have said it is safe and asbestos free. The company, through its subsidiary LTL, filed for bankruptcy in 2022 and later offered to settle the lawsuits for $9 billion after a federal appeals court rejected an earlier attempt to settle the claims.
Bankruptcy stopped legal actions against the company. Plaintiffs nationwide want the bankruptcy protective status removed.
A U.S. bankruptcy court allowed the Alameda trial to proceed only because Valadez is not expected to live beyond a few more months. Even if he wins a judgment any monetary award would be delayed until the bankruptcy process is ended.
Safeway and Walmart stores are being sued along with J&J accused of selling tainted baby powder to Valadez’s mother who then used it on the plaintiff.
Longo appeared for a second day of testimony. He told Joseph Satterley, Valadez’s attorney, that his rate for testifying was $650 per hour.
“Over the past 35 years you have made about $35 million (exact figure $33 million in litigation and consulting work),” Satterley said.
“That is accurate,” Longo said.
“Because you get paid does it mean your testimony is fraudulent?”
“No, that is hurtful,” Longo said. “We work for defendants too. We do the exact same analysis. I’ve been doing this too long to make up data.”
Longo said the money his company earns goes to pay the employees of his MAS lab in Georgia their salaries and insurance, as well as purchase of expensive lab equipment.
“It’s overhead,” he said. “We’re a small company and we have to generate revenue. It’s not that I’ve made $30 million in 30 years.”
Defense attorney Brown zeroed in on Longo’s pay and frequent court appearances. She used his prior deposition testimony in an attempt to demonstrate that he has contradicted himself.
“I’ve probably had 300 trials in my career,” Longo agreed.
“You’ve had a relationship with Mr. Satterley for decades,” Brown said.
“I think that’s correct,” Longo responded.
“You’re not a medical doctor.”
“I’m not.”
“You have no training in biology, mineralogy,” Brown said. “You’ve never tested any (baby powder) bottle Mr. Valadez used.”
“That is correct.”
“You’ve never tested a (talc powder) sample from start to finish.”
“No, the folks in the lab do, I get involved if there is a dispute what something is.”
Brown displayed a photo taken 40 years ago, an advertisement in which Longo can be seen wearing a white lab coat sitting next to microscope equipment.
“You spend little to no time in a lab coat,” Brown said.
Longo answered that he did still get on a microscope at times.
Brown inferred that Longo spent so much time in court he had little time for much else. She added that 95% of Longo’s court appearances were for plaintiffs.
Longo agreed and said “Cosmetic talc companies don’t hire me.”
He had noted earlier in the trial that some of his clients were defendant companies to whom he had provided information about asbestos.
Longo said business and trial appearances had slowed during the COVID epidemic, but over the past few years his company had made about $2 million for an approximate total of $33 million over a period of 35 years.
The day before, Longo testified that Johnson & Johnson officials convinced the McCrone Group lab in Illinois to alter a report where asbestos had been found to say instead that the asbestos found was “non-quantifiable.”
Brown cited a report by a researcher A.M. Langer that had found no asbestos in talc samples.
“That was a non-detect,” Longo corrected. “No one can say ‘none.’ It’s not fair when you say it’s asbestos-free.”
From the start of the trial, defense attorneys have contended that Valadez could have had exposure to asbestos from sources other than baby powder. They mentioned as examples that his father had worked around job sites as a handyman and Valadez attended school in an old building. Brown recited a number of industrial uses where asbestos exposure could occur by being in close proximity to boiler insulation, tiles, packing, insulation materials and cement.
Longo agreed that each one could contain asbestos.
Brown produced a deposition statement from Longo in which he had said, “What I haven’t been able to do is say yes I found it (asbestos).”
Another statement read, “I have looked at cosmetic talc and have never found any (asbestos). It was below our detection limit.”
“That’s what the transcript states,” Longo said.
However, Longo indicated that new evidence had caused him to change his opinion later in the 2000s.
Five different principal types of testing of powder samples are done by labs. Through the heavy liquid separation method, TEM or transmission electron microscope, the SEM scanning electron microscope, PLM or polarized light microscopy and XRD or X-ray diffraction method.
Longo said earlier in the week that heavy liquid and TEM were the best methods, XRD the least sensitive.
Heavy liquid involves using a spinning tube in which liquid is placed to separate heavier materials including asbestos fibers which settle at the bottom of the tube.
In past trials, plaintiff attorneys have accused company officials of avoiding the liquid separation method because they were afraid it would turn up asbestos fibers and opted instead for the XRD testing.
Longo said the heavy liquid method was not a part of the lab’s usage in the early 2000s but that using the method later revealed the presence of asbestos.
“It (liquid separation) hadn't been a part of our protocol,” he said. “Then we went from non-detected to 70,000 asbestos bundles and fibers per gram.”
Brown mentioned Longo being approached by Satterley in 2016 to provide testimony as a paid witness in the trial and changing his opinion about asbestos in baby powder, linking the two.
Satterley objected to the statement.
“She (Brown) is suggesting that he (Longo) got involved in this litigation because Satterley is a bad person,” Satterley said.
The statement was stricken by Alameda Superior Court Judge Richard Seabolt.
Longo said Brown’s statement was misleading.`
“It started in 2014 (changed opinion) when there was an analysis done of Cashmere Bouquet (J&J adult talc powder product),” he said. “That got my interest up.”
Longo said tremolite had been found in the Cashmere Bouquet tests.