Plaintiffs: “The Evidence Could Not Be More Clear”
At closing arguments, Leigh O’Dell of Beasley Allen Law Firm, representing the estate of Gayle Emerson, accused Johnson & Johnson of concealing the presence of asbestos in its baby powder for decades.
“Johnson & Johnson hid the presence of asbestos in Johnson’s baby powder from the FDA, the regulators, and people like Ms. Emerson since the 1960s,” O’Dell told jurors. “The evidence could not be more clear.”
When pressing for punitive damages, O’Dell pointed jurors to the company’s net worth — $72.27 billion, according to a slide presented at trial — arguing that any award should be large enough to resonate.
“Whatever the amount is, it should be enough in light of this net worth to send a message,” she said.
Defense: Alternative Risk Factors at Play
Defense attorneys countered that the plaintiff’s team selectively presented evidence and failed to prove that Emerson’s ovarian cancer was caused by Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorney Shaila Diwan told jurors that Emerson had engaged in regular douching, a practice she argued is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Diwan also cited obesity and age as contributing factors.
“They want to put their talc blinders on,” Diwan said during trial, suggesting the plaintiff’s case overlooked other medical realities.
Diwan further argued that hereditary factors made it likely Emerson would have developed cancer regardless of product use.
“What the evidence has shown is that it wasn’t Johnson’s baby powder,” she told jurors.
