B1 Marketing Group

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has rejected a request for a new trial in a talc lawsuit involving a $22 million verdict, ruling that the trial court properly resolved an apparent inconsistency in the jury's findings. The decision allows the judgment to stand and marks another significant development in the ongoing talc litigation.

The case involved claims that long-term exposure to Johnson & Johnson's talc-based products caused the plaintiff to develop mesothelioma. Although the jury found that the company was not liable for causing the illness, it also awarded $22 million in punitive damages.

The trial judge determined that the verdict was legally inconsistent and entered judgment in favor of Johnson & Johnson rather than ordering a new trial. The Superior Court agreed, concluding that the trial court acted within its authority in resolving the conflicting verdict.

Johnson & Johnson continues to deny that its talc products contained asbestos or caused cancer, while thousands of talc-related claims remain pending across the country. The appellate ruling underscores the complex legal issues surrounding inconsistent jury verdicts and could influence how similar disputes are handled in future talc litigation.

Defendants, including 3M, DuPont, Tyco, and other manufacturers, have asked a federal court to dismiss thousands of personal injury claims in the nationwide PFAS multidistrict litigation (MDL), arguing that many plaintiffs failed to submit required fact sheets, medical records, and other case-specific information.

The motions follow case management orders issued by U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, who oversees the PFAS MDL in South Carolina. After concerns arose over tens of thousands of unfiled or incomplete claims, the court required plaintiffs to provide supporting documentation. According to the defendants, more than 8,000 plaintiffs failed to comply, with a separate motion later targeting over 10,000 additional claims.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have opposed the motions, explaining that many firms have made extensive efforts to contact clients through mail, email, phone calls, and text messages but have been unable to obtain the necessary documentation. Some firms have voluntarily dismissed certain cases without prejudice, while others continue to work toward compliance.

Despite the dispute, the PFAS litigation remains one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history, involving more than 100,000 plaintiffs who allege exposure to "forever chemicals" in drinking water caused serious health conditions. The court's rulings on these dismissal motions could significantly influence the future management of the nationwide litigation.

A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against AbbVie, alleging that the company failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk of facial scarring, disfigurement, and delayed inflammatory reactions associated with its popular Juvederm dermal filler products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff developed painful granulomas, or inflammatory facial lumps, after receiving Juvederm injections. The lawsuit claims AbbVie was aware of medical studies identifying these risks but did not provide sufficient warnings on product labeling or marketing materials.

Plaintiffs argue that clearer disclosures could have helped consumers make more informed decisions before undergoing cosmetic filler procedures.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of consumers who purchased Juvederm products, as well as individuals who allegedly suffered delayed-onset granulomas or facial disfigurement following treatment.

The case requests compensation, medical cost reimbursement, updated product warnings, and other relief. AbbVie has not been found liable, and the allegations remain to be proven in court.