Editor's note: This article has been corrected from an earlier published version to more accurately quote the answers of Dr. Jerrold Abraham, as he testifed under oath during questioning at the trial in this case on June 20, 2023. The Northern California Record otherwise stands by the accuracy of the initial article.
In a trial now in its third week to determine if Johnson & Johnson baby powder caused a man’s rare cancer, plaintiff attorneys again said asbestos in the powder is the most likely culprit.
“Did the baby powder increase his risk?” asked Joseph Satterley, attorney for plaintiff Anthony Valadez.
“It is a major contributor,” responded Dr. Jerrold Abraham, a plaintiff expert witness and a pathologist with the Upstate Medical University in New York State. “It’s the only one I know of. I haven’t seen any other evidence of asbestos exposure in his (Valadez’s) case.”
Defense attorneys later countered that no asbestos fibers found in lab test samples of the tissues of Valadez proved nothing.
The trial in the Alameda Superior Court is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
Valadez is suing Johnson & Johnson and other corporations including retailers Safeway, Walmart and Target stores 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 resolved.
Safeway, Walmart and Target stores are accused along with J&J of selling tainted baby powder to Valadez’s mother who then used it on the plaintiff.
Abraham, a specialist in the study of diseases, told Satterley the powder once inhaled works its way into the pleura and surrounds the lungs and heart. There is a latency period from the time of first exposure to the onset of illness which can take decades.
“Normal cells become cancer cells that line the visceral pleura, two (tissue) layers with fluid in between. Fluid builds up and compresses the heart so it doesn’t work as well,” Abraham said.
Satterley mentioned that tissue slides of Valadez had revealed no asbestos fibers, but Abraham said it’s not a surprise. The samples are small only revealing a fraction of the tissues.
“Is there a cure?” Satterley asked.
““Not that I know of,” Abraham said.
“Will he die?”
“Very likely.”
“You charge $800 per hour,” Satterley noted. “Does the charge for your time (testifying) impact your decisions?”
“No.”
Under cross examination, J&J attorney Scott Richman of Nelson Mullins in Baltimore questioned Abraham about another case in the 1990s which Abraham had reviewed. In that case involving a woman’s cancer no asbestos fibers had been found in tissue samples.
Richman exhibited a deposition taken at the time in which Abraham had stated, “I didn’t find any under the usual definition of asbestos.”
“The only mineral you found in a (baby powder) can was talc,” Richman said.
“Yes,” Abraham said.
“Since the 1980s until 2023 you’ve tested (talc) dozens of times,” Richman said.
“Probably,” Abraham answered.
“In 20 years you’ve testified for plaintiffs 100% of the time.”
Abraham said it was 99%.
“You’ve reviewed 350 cases per year.”
“Yes.”
“You never offered an opinion that baby powder caused mesothelioma until you were hired (by plaintiff lawyers).”
“Probably true,” Abraham said.
Abraham said he had not spoken with Valadez’s doctors but after reviewing the case had no reason to doubt his opinion about the risk of talc powder.
“If there were other (asbestos) exposures I would include them (in reviews),” he said.
Richman mentioned Valadez’s father who had worked at housing job sites as a handyman where he could have been exposed to asbestos.
“Talc with no asbestos wouldn’t cause mesothelioma,” Richman said.
“I agree that talc that doesn’t have asbestos if you don’t confine it to the regulatory type it doesn’t cause mesothelioma,” Abraham said.
“Mesothelioma can occur without detectable exposure.”
Abraham agreed saying that people with no known history of exposure to asbestos can get mesothelioma.
Richman exhibited an article from 1982 co-authored by Abraham in which it said, “Cosmetic talc is not generally considered to be a hazard.”
Richman asked Abraham if he was aware that other specialists such as Dr. Ronald Dodson, a Texas biological researcher and plaintiff witness, also found no asbestos fibers in Valadez’s tissue samples.
“I wouldn’t expect to find fibers that happen not to be in that five-micron section," Abraham said.
Later in the afternoon Dr. Dean Felsher, an oncology professor at Stanford University, was asked for his opinion on the cause of Valadez’s illness.
“Exposure to cosmetic talc was a substantial contributing cause of his mesothelioma,” Felsher said.