Evan Plotkin et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al.

Case Background

On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff Evan Plotkin and Martha Plotkin filed a Asbestos lawsuit in the  Bridgeport Judicial District of the Connecticut Superior Court(Case number:  FBT-CV21-6109520-S). Judges Barbara Bellis, Thomas Welch, Barry Stevens, and Charles Reed presided over the case.

Cause

Evan C. Plotkin, a Connecticut resident, was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products over several decades, from the 1950s through the 2000s. His exposure primarily resulted from his personal use of talcum products that contained asbestos, which he applied on himself and his children. Additionally, as an artist and sculptor, Plotkin regularly used asbestos-containing art and craft supplies during his work, further increasing his risk of exposure. This consistent and prolonged exposure occurred at various locations and times throughout his life.

The Defendants, consisting of several companies involved in the asbestos industry, mined, milled, processed, manufactured, and distributed these asbestos-containing products. Despite their extensive involvement in the asbestos industry, the Defendants knew or should have known the dangers of asbestos exposure. By the 1920s, medical and scientific data clearly indicated that asbestos could cause severe health risks, including fatal diseases such as mesothelioma. Despite this knowledge, the Defendants continued to manufacture, market, and sell asbestos-laden products without providing adequate warnings to consumers.

Throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and beyond, the Defendants actively concealed the hazardous nature of asbestos, withholding crucial information from the public and regulatory agencies. The products Plotkin used, including talcum powders, contained asbestos fibers that he inhaled and ingested. Over time, these fibers caused significant damage to his lungs, leading to the development of asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma. The Defendants failed to inform consumers of the deadly risks associated with asbestos exposure and took no steps to recall or reformulate their products.

Injuries

Evan C. Plotkin developed mesothelioma, a fatal asbestos-related cancer, as a direct result of prolonged asbestos exposure. The disease caused him immense physical pain, mental anguish, emotional trauma, and anxiety. His ability to participate in life activities, enjoy family life, engage in employment, and fulfill civic duties significantly impaired. Furthermore, his life expectancy shortened due to the severity of the illness.

Damages

As a consequence of the mesothelioma diagnosis, the Plaintiff incurred extensive medical expenses for treatments, including surgery, drugs, and hospitalization. His earning capacity severely diminished due to his deteriorating health. The physical and emotional toll further led to a loss of enjoyment of life. The Plaintiff’s spouse, Martha Barry-Plotkin, also claimed damages for loss of consortium, companionship, and support resulting from her husband’s illness. Both Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages to cover medical costs, lost income, and emotional distress, alongside punitive damages against the Defendants for their reckless and malicious conduct in a Asbestos lawsuit.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Defendant(s):Johnson & Johnson | Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. | American International Industries, individually and as successor to Pinaud, Inc. |  Barbara Alice, Inc., Ed. Pinaud, Inc. d/b/a Ed. Pinaud, and Nestle-Le Mur Company | Brenntag North America, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Mineral and Pigment Solutions, Inc. and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. | Brenntag Specialties, LLC f/k/a Brenntag Specialties, Inc. f/k/a Mineral and Pigment Solutions, Inc., successor-in-interest to Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. | Connecticut CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C. | CVS Health Corporation | CVS Pharmacy, Inc. | Glamour Industries Co. | Kerr Corporation | The Neslemur Company f/k/a The Nestle-Lemur Company | Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. | Chattem, Inc. | S & S Brands LLC | Pfizer Inc. | Johnson & Johnson Holdco (NA) Inc. f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., individually and successor in interest to Johnson & Johnson Subsidiary “Old JJCI” | Kenvue Inc., individually and as successor in interest to Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. | Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to Johnson & Johnson Subsidiaries named Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., both prior to and after its 2021 restructurings and colloquially known as “Old JJCI” and “New JJCI” | LTL Management, Inc. | Pecos River Talc LLC

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

“This trial demonstrated once again that J&J knew its products would cause harm, but they chose to do the wrong thing time and time again,” said Mr. Plotkin’s attorney, Ben Braly of Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP (DOBS). “We are devastated for the Plotkin family. No amount can ever make up for what Johnson & Johnson did to Evan.”

Claims

The Plaintiffs have filed multiple claims against the Defendants, primarily involving product liability, negligence, failure to warn, fraud, and violations under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) in a Asbestos lawsuit. They assert that the Defendants are strictly liable for asbestos-containing products that were unreasonably dangerous and defective, arguing that these products entered the market without adequate warnings or instructions. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants had a duty to ensure product safety, and their failure to do so makes them liable for the resulting harm.

The negligence claim centers on the Defendants’ failure to address known asbestos risks. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants did not conduct proper testing, failed to remove dangerous products from the market, and neglected to provide adequate warnings or seek safer alternatives.

A crucial part of the case is the failure to warn claim. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants knew or should have known about the dangers of asbestos but did not provide sufficient warnings. Even when warnings were issued, they were misleading, and the Plaintiffs contend that Plotkin would not have used the products had proper warnings been given.

The fraud claim specifically accuses Johnson & Johnson of falsely representing the safety of their talcum products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder. The Plaintiffs allege that the company concealed test results showing asbestos, manipulated testing, and falsely claimed their products were asbestos-free.

Finally, under CUTPA, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants engaged in deceptive marketing practices, misleading consumers about the safety of their products, and seek punitive damages to hold them accountable for their actions.

Defense

In their defense, the Defendants denied all allegations made by the Plaintiffs in a Asbestos lawsuit. They argued that they lacked sufficient knowledge about the specifics of the Plaintiffs’ claims and challenged the validity of the allegations. The Defendants claimed that they did not manufacture, sell, or distribute products containing asbestos that could have caused Evan Plotkin’s illness. They also asserted that the statute of limitations and statute of repose barred the Plaintiffs’ claims. Additionally, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs assumed the risk of using the products and that other parties, such as employers or intermediaries, were responsible for warning about any potential hazards.

The defense also maintained that any products associated with the case were manufactured according to contract specifications and complied with industry standards at the time. They denied any responsibility for modifications or misuse of their products after distribution. Moreover, they contended that the Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages and that the court lacked jurisdiction over certain claims.

Finally, the Defendants argued that they were entitled to set-offs for any compensation already received by the Plaintiffs from other parties and demanded contribution or indemnification from other defendants if found liable.

Expert Testimony

Plaintiff’s Expert

Plaintiff experts provided testimony on various aspects of asbestos exposure and related diseases in a Asbestos lawsuit. Dr. Arnold R. Brody explained the physiological design and function of the lungs, the effects of asbestos on the body, and the irreversible nature of asbestos-related diseases. Dr. William Longo discussed the Plaintiff’s asbestos exposure, focusing on the material characteristics of asbestos-containing products, particularly talc, and the release of asbestos fibers. Dr. Steven Haber reviewed the Plaintiff’s work history, medical records, and diagnosis of asbestos-related diseases. R. Mark Bailey described the analytical methods used to identify and quantify asbestos, while Dr. Gary Crakes laid the economic foundation necessary for understanding damages. David Madigan, Ph.D., explained statistical and probability concepts related to asbestos risk prediction.

Defendant’s Expert

Defendant experts challenged these claims with their own testimony in a Asbestos lawsuit. Robert Adams discussed industrial hygiene principles, exposure measurement, and hazard identification regarding talcum powder. Laura Fuchs Dolan provided an economic analysis of the Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Dr. I.A. Feingold testified about asbestos-related diseases in occupational settings, while Dr. Brooke T. Mossman addressed fiber carcinogenesis. Dr. Kenneth Mundt covered the epidemiology of asbestos-related diseases, and Dr. Tim D. Oury provided insights into asbestos-related pulmonary pathology. Alan M. Segrave discussed asbestos identification techniques, and Dr. Richard Attanoos provided expertise on thoracic pathology and mesothelioma. Dr. Christy Barlow offered testimony on toxicology and exposure to airborne chemicals, including asbestos and talc.

Dr. Michele Carbone explained the pathological effects of asbestos on the lungs, while Dr. Lewis Chodosh addressed genetic mutations and cancer diagnoses. Anthony Ciccodicola and Dr. Brent Finley discussed economic damages and industrial hygiene standards, respectively. Dr. Andrew R. Fischer provided testimony on asbestos-related diseases, and Dr. Mark Wick elaborated on asbestos exposure effects in occupational settings. Dr. Gary M. Marsh explained epidemiological causation principles, and Dr. Dominik Alexander offered statistical rebuttals regarding asbestos in talc products. Finally, Dr. David Weill covered the medical knowledge on asbestos-related pulmonary diseases and the role of different fiber types in causing mesothelioma.

Jury Verdict

On October 15, 2024, a jury awarded $15 million in a verdict against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries for damages caused by asbestos found in the company’s talc-based Baby Powder in a Asbestos lawsuit.

 Court Documents:

Complaint

Answer

Jury Verdict