Sarasota jury: Johnson & Johnson baby powder did not cause woman’s death from cancer

A Sarasota jury has ruled Johnson & Johnson's talc-based baby powder was not responsible for a Sarasota County woman's death due to ovarian cancer. The decision took less than five hours of deliberation Thursday.

Philippe Matthey, on behalf of his mother’s estate, sued Johnson & Johnson for product liability and wrongful death, continuing his mother's efforts following her death in November 2019.

The complaint alleged that Pat Matthey's cancer was linked to the talc-based baby powder produced by Johnson & Johnson which she had used for more than 50 years. Patricia Matthey died three years after she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in August 2016, according to court records and testimony.

Ongoing trial coverage: Johnson & Johnson trial: Witnesses testify no cancer causing asbestos in baby powder

Johnson & Johnson baby powder trial: Sarasota woman testifies 'life has been a nightmare'

In a video deposition of Patricia Matthey shared with the jury previously, Pat Matthey testified that she regularly used Johnson & Johnson's baby powder product since she was 18 years old, recalling the advertisements that were aimed at young women about how the product would make them smell "clean and fresh."

In a three-week long trial, attorneys for the Matthey family and Johnson & Johnson presented witnesses which contradicted each other, continuing the decades long debate.

Husband of Pat Matthey disappointed, but feels he 'did my duty' in honor wife's memory

The jury's verdict concluded that Patricia Matthey's use of Johnson & Johnson's baby powder was not a legal cause for her cancer. Under Florida law, legal cause means it has to be a substantial contributing factor.

Lance Oliver, the lead attorney for the family, during his closing arguments explained to the jury that while everything in life has multiple causes, in this case, it wasn't his burden to prove that talcum powder was the only cause of Pat Matthey's cancer, but rather that it was a substantial contributing cause and that it mattered in the course of her disease.

Bernard Matthey, Pat Matthey's husband, said while he's disappointed with the outcome, he did what he and his wife decided to fight for.

"What my objective was, basically to respect what Pat and myself decided to fight for and that for me was victory," Bernard Matthey said. "I came alone, and a decision was taken, and we shall respect it completely. I'm obviously disappointed, but at the same time, I feel that I did my duty in regard of the memory of Pat."

Oliver said he still believes in the system and thanked the jurors for giving their time to sit through the three weeks.

"As long as we have people giving their time, then I'm not going to complain about the result," Oliver said. "It's disappointing to lose, I still believe in the cases, I still believe in my client, and I'm grateful that I had an opportunity to do this with such a great team."

The lead defense attorney for Johnson & Johnson declined to comment for the story following the verdict.

A Johnson & Johnson representative provided an emailed statement from Erik Haas, Johnson & Johnson's Worldwide Vice President of Litigation, in which he stated this case was another loss for the Beasley Allen law firm, which represented the Matthey family. Haas said in his statement that the law firm has continued to be a "primary opponent and impediment to a final and comprehensive settlement" for all current and future claimants.

"Consistent with decades of scientific research, the jury appropriately found that talc is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer, which is the same outcome the Company achieved in 16 of 17 ovarian cases tried to date," Haas said. "The plaintiffs’ bar should cease their pursuit of aberrant jackpot verdicts by proffering false and misleading narratives designed to confuse and deceive."

Haas added that the verdict furthers Johnson & Johnson's plan for achieving a "comprehensive and final resolution of the talc litigation" which includes working with a majority of claimants on a resolution of similar claims through bankruptcy.

"While those negotiations are proceeding, we will continue to defend the meritless talc claims in the tort system, which we have done successfully and repeatedly this year," Haas said.

Trial against Johnson & Johnson: Expert testifies to what was found in baby powder

More: Sarasota jury hears opening statements in wrongful death trial against Johnson & Johnson

Matthey family's attorney: statistical association between talcum powder and ovarian cancer

Oliver started his closing arguments by displaying on a screen for the jury Occam's Razor's theory: "The simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

In the 1930s, 1940s, but certainly by the 1950s, Johnson & Johnson knew there were sharp needle-like asbestiform particles in their mines, Oliver said, and the company couldn't find mines without asbestos in them. Oliver conceded that not every bottle of baby powder had asbestos in it, but it did end up in some.

Yet, Johnson & Johnson didn't warn consumers about it, Oliver said.

"They knew ovarian cancer was associated with their product, but they did nothing about it," Oliver said.

He added that Johnson & Johnson knew the company could not withstand if consumer trust was broken.

While Pat Matthey had several risk factors which could have contributed to ovarian cancer, like being at an advanced age and having a family history of breast cancer, Oliver said the overwhelming risk factor was her more than 41,000 applications of Johnson's baby powder. The very product which their historian expert, Lara Freidenfelds, had walked the jury through advertisements directed at young women as being a safe and hygienic product.

As far as believing in the science, Oliver focused his argument on how over the last 40 years, 38 out of 40 studies showed there was a statistical association between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. The studies were included in a meta-analysis study which found there was a 30-60% increased risk of developing ovarian cancer linked to talcum powder use.

He added that the studies hold weight because of the fact that the tests weren't performed in the same place, were done by different doctors and researchers, and consisted of tens of thousands of women being studied.

In addition, none of the defendant's experts said the scientists did the math wrong, Oliver said, instead citing recall bias and confoundment as reasons why the studies aren't valid.

Defense: Jury should make decision based on science, not sympathy or bias

Morton Dubin, lead counsel for Johnson & Johnson, said the jury should focus on science and facts of the case, and refrain from basing their decision on sympathy, their emotions or bias.

The entire case rests on two key questions, Dubin said, the first being, "Does talcum powder cause ovarian cancer," and the second, "Did talcum powder use cause Ms. Matthey's Cancer?"

If the weight of the evidence doesn't prove the first question, then the jury can't prove the second.

Dubin pointed to the decades' worth of studies performed by public health organizations which studied hundreds of thousands of women which found that there wasn't an association between talcum powder and increased risk for ovarian cancer.

The defense attempted in their closing arguments to poke holes in the plaintiff's witnesses' credibility, pointing to how Freidenfelds, in all her research, hadn't read a specific internal letter or at a report which indicated there was no asbestos in the mines.

Oliver, during his rebuttal closing, addressed Dubin's attempt to poke holes in their witnesses' credibility, specifically noting that when their witnesses made a mistake, they were quick to address it and let the jury know that they did make a mistake or were wrong about something.

More: No strong link between baby powder and cancer, study finds

Amid cancer lawsuits: Johnson & Johnson to end sales of talc baby powder globally next year

In addressing the family's argument that Johnson & Johnson would interfere by sending representatives to convince the researchers to reanalyze their work or admit to flaws in the work, Dubin pointed that when retests were done, no asbestos was found in Johnson's product.

Johnson & Johnson has questioned scientists over time, but not without reason, Dubin said.

As far as if talcum powder caused Pat Matthey's cancer, Dubin pointed to the fact that there was no asbestos or fibrous talc found in her ovaries, only platy talc. He pointed to pathologist Dr. Juan Felix's work which didn't find chronic inflammation in her reproductive tract.

Dubin questioned that if there was irritating talc in the baby powder that caused irritation, people wouldn't use it because they associate the product as being soothing.

Gabriela Szymanowska covers the legal system for the Herald-Tribune in partnership with Report for America. You can support her work with a tax-deductible donation to Report for America. Contact Gabriela Szymanowska at gszymanowska@gannett.com, or on X: @GabrielaSzyman3.

This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Sarasota jury rules in favor of Johnson & Johnson in baby powder suit