A subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, was hit with a $120 million verdict by a Pennsylvania jury. The lawsuit arose from medical mesh device which was implanted in the plaintiff during a 2008 procedure. The plaintiff, a 68-year-old woman, argued that she suffered from chronic pelvic pain and urinary tract infections as a result of the mesh. She was required to undergo a surgery to remove the mesh. Despite efforts by doctors, the surgery to remove the mesh was unsuccessful, her attorneys stated.
On February 1, 2019, a jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $41 million to a Pennsylvania couple after the woman was injured by vaginal mesh. The woman, Suzanne Emmett, was implanted with the mesh in early 2007. Not long after, Emmett began experiencing complications with the mesh, when it began eroding through her soft tissues. She experienced discomfort, bleeding, infections, painful sex, and other symptoms. Despite having nine surgeries, in an attempt to correct the problems, Emmett continues to suffer from scarring and other permanent problems to this day.
Johnson & Johnson lost a motion seeking to overturn a jury verdict in excess of $4 billion. The jury found that Johnson & Johnson was to blame for ovarian cancer of 22 women who sued the company. The cases centered around talc powder manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. The lawsuits allege that the company's baby powder and other talc powder products were contaminated with asbestos particles that can cause cancer.
A Missouri judge has recently upheld the award of 4.7 billion dollars in damages to twenty-two victims of ovarian cancer against Johnson & Johnson. This case stems from Johnson & Johnson having produced talc powder for decades, encouraging its use in women and children, all the while knowing of its contamination with asbestos. Company communications reveal both Johnson & Johnson's knowledge of the contamination, and of the health threats posed by asbestos. Citing the "reprehensible conduct" of the manufacturer, the judge upheld the judgment as being supported by the evidence adduced at trial.
Counties, cities, and states across the country are suing the nation's largest pharmaceutical companies over their role in the opioid crisis. Most lawsuits are targeting drug manufacturing giants such as Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma, Inc., and McKesson. According to many lawsuits, the companies failed to follow federal guidelines and "knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently" released drugs such as OxyContin, Percocet, and Vicodin to suspicious physicians and pharmacies. Others assert that the ease of access to opioids is what allowed dangerous substances to be sold on the black market resulting in widespread addictions and even deaths across the United States. Many allege that the pharmaceutical companies engaged in fraudulent marketing in an attempt to hide the addictive nature of opioid drugs.
Johnson & Johnson is pulling all of its infant Tylenol from the United States market because of numerous problems associated with their newly redesigned bottles. The new bottles were supposed to make it easier and safer to measure doses through the syringe. The idea behind the new design was to limit how much of the liquid Tylenol could be drawn into the plastic syringe that was inserted into the bottle. Instead, there was a defect in the new design that allowed the plastic protective covers to give way, allowing the protective cover to be pushed into the bottle.
Fourteen years after the State of Texas recovered $17.3 billion from tobacco manufacturers, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott now returns to the courtroom this week against pharmaceutical giant, Janssen Pharmaceutical LLC in hopes to recover more than $1 billion in damages. Abbott is charging Johnson & Johnson Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary Janssen, and five other related companies for implementing a "sophisticated marketing scheme" to defraud the state into overpaying for Janssen's schizophrenia drug, Risperdal. The state also alleges in its lawsuit that the pharmaceutical companies misled Texas health officials about Risperdal's effectiveness, risk of side effects, and safety for pediatric use.