Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP

Proven Kansas City Trial Attorneys

Header Right

FREE CASE EVALUATION (816) 701-1100

Call
Contact
News

Latest News

Leave a Comment

What is Talcum Powder, and Why is it Dangerous?

Talcum powder, also commonly known as “baby powder,” has been used by mothers to help reduce diaper rash in their babies, as well as by women as a personal hygiene product, for generations. However, recent studies have linked the use of talcum powder in the genital area to an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer.

In July 2018, manufacturer Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $4.7 billion in damages to 22 women claiming to have developed ovarian cancer from the use of the company’s talcum powder products. Since then, more women have come forward with their own stories about the potential negative side effects of talcum powder use.

Despite this, talcum powder products are still largely unregulated by the government, and manufacturers do not warn consumers of the potential link between talc-containing products and ovarian cancer, breaching the trust of consumers and creating a liability upon use.

What is Talcum Powder, and Why is it Dangerous?

Talc is a naturally occurring mineral that is commonly found as a main ingredient in products such as Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Valeant Pharmaceuticals’ Shower to Shower. According to the American Cancer Society, talcum powder is used to absorb moisture and reduce friction, as well as having cosmetic functionality in body and facial powders and feminine hygiene products.

Women who use (or have used) talcum powder products on a regular basis have been observed to have an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. One study conducted by Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Margaret Gates found that regular use of talcum powder in the genital area could result in a nearly 24 percent increase in risk of developing ovarian cancer.

In a similar study, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified perineal use of talcum powder products as being “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” reinforcing the link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.

Responses to Recent Verdicts in Talcum Powder Lawsuits

The $4.7 billion verdict in the Johnson & Johnson case has been highly publicized not only for its jaw-dropping monetary value, but for the controversy surrounding the verdict as well. The plaintiffs alleged that Johnson & Johnson (and other talcum powder product manufacturers) had systematically covered up the dangers of talcum powder since at least the 1980s, and also observed traces of asbestos in talcum products after asbestos-containing products were supposedly phased out during the 1970s.

In the past decade alone, thousands of women have come forward with their stories over concerns that talcum powder products, such as baby powder, have caused irreparable harm stemming from habitual use of these products during their lifetimes. Of the 22 plaintiffs named in the 2018 Johnson & Johnson case, six of them had died from ovarian cancer caused by talcum powder products by the time the verdict was delivered.

Following a similar $127 million verdict in 2016, Johnson & Johnson maintained its longstanding views on the safety of talc powder products, citing “30 years of studies by medical experts around the world, science, research and clinical evidence” as a means of proving that talcum powder products are safe for cosmetic use in women and babies alike.

To those who have been negatively impacted by talcum powder products, however, this appears to be a gross deflection of a bigger issue—the livelihood of their consumers. As such, many former plaintiffs have felt betrayed by a company that has been a part of their families for over a century, and Johnson & Johnson continues to find itself mired in controversy over claims of deception and negligence.

Contact an Experienced Talcum Powder Attorney

Any company who creates a product for consumer use has a duty to ensure that their product is safe when used as intended. When this duty is breached—or ignored—countless lives can be put in danger due to potential health risks and unintended side effects of use.

In the case of talcum powder products, which have been used in childcare and personal hygiene for decades, failing to warn consumers of potential product danger is not only frowned upon—it can warrant legal action as well.

At Wagstaff & Cartmell, years of national experience with product liability and high-stake litigation has helped us achieve results that count, especially when the health and wellbeing of consumers is involved.

If you or a loved one has been negatively impacted by the use of talcum powder in the past, you may be eligible for legal compensation for your injuries. For more information about talcum powder lawsuits or to discuss a potential claim you may have, contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

Leave a Comment

Wagstaff & Cartmell Representing 2 Kansas and Missouri Counties in Opiod Epidemic

Joining the effort to combat the opioid epidemic, Wagstaff & Cartmell has recently been named to represent two Kansas counties and two Missouri counties in suits which allege that pharmaceutical companies aggressively pushed pain killers while falsely representing the dangers of addiction.

Montgomery and Bourbon counties in Kansas, as well as Lafayette and Worth counties in Missouri, have filed federal suits against over a dozen manufacturers and distributors for being in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Bourbon County stated that the goal of its suit is to “to abate the public nuisance caused by rampant and uncontrolled opioid use and addiction, and to recoup taxpayer monies that have been spent because of defendants’ false, deceptive and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion and distribution of prescription opioids.”

Companies engaged in Marketing Schemes

The suit further alleges that manufacturers turned to “marketing schemes” to persuade doctors in patients to use opioids for chronic pain, without regard to the ravaging effects of addiction has on patients that has ultimately contributed to a drastic increase in overdose deaths in Kansas since 2013.

Defendants in the suit include Purdue Pharma, alleged to sell as much as $3 billion worth of OxyContin per year, making up about 30 percent of the entire pain killer market. In a similar 2017 lawsuit in Mississippi, Purdue said it was “deeply troubled by the opioid crisis” and pledged to stop marketing opioids to doctors.

Other defendants include McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and Amerisourcebergen Drug Corp., who make up 85 percent of the market share for the distribution of prescription opioids.

Unlawful Conduct Leading to Increased Opiod Usage

The named companies, along with others, are said to have been faced with the impossibility to legally achieve increasing sales ambitions. Racketeering thus became utilized when they failed to “maintain effective controls against diversion of their drugs, to design and operate a system to identify suspicious orders of their drugs, to halt unlawful sales of suspicious orders, and to notify the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) of suspicious orders.”

The plaintiffs have called for a jury trial, stating that “Each (distributor) has been investigated and/or fined by the DEA for the failure to report suspicious orders.” Because of this, the plaintiffs “[have] reason to believe each has engaged in unlawful conduct which resulted in the diversion of prescription opioids into our community.”

While none of the named defendants have yet been served with the latest lawsuit, it is hoped that the coming case will result in these companies being held responsible for their negligent actions, and that genuine efforts to fight the opioid epidemic are seen from these companies, as they have promised to do in the past.

Leave a Comment

Wagstaff & Cartmell Attorney Brian Madden’s Case Development: The Insys Therapeutics Whistleblower

A development in the ongoing federal case against Insys has revealed that a former pharmaceutical sales representative who frequented the office of defendant Dr. Steven Simon was actually working with the government in a separate whistleblower case against his own employer during their contact with one another.

The recently unsealed document reveals that Torgny Andersson was one of five industry insiders who filed whistleblower complaings against Insys. According to Wagstaff & Cartmell attorney Brian Madden, who is currently representing Andersson in the case, Andersson and other insiders “[have] assisted the Department of Justice with its investigation into Insys sales practices since October of 2013.”

Illegal Kickback Scheme

Andersson’s complaint confirms federal prosecutors’ claim that Insys executives engaged in an illegal kickback scheme by explicitly instructing drug reps to pay physician speakers based on how many Subsys (an oral fentanyl spray) prescriptions they wrote—an incentive which many, like Simon, are alleged to have taken full advantage of, despite the harmful side effects Subsys has had on former patients.

Contextual details of the case also confirm that Simon was not only the top-paid Subsys speaker in Andersson’s territory of Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska, but was also among the top 10 most-paid representatives nationwide, making approximately $221,000 between August 2013 to Decmeber 2015.

Simon Denies the Kickback Claim

Despite Simon’s claims that his relationship with Insys was purely professional and that no such kickback offer was extended toward him, his status as a former Insys speaker trainer and position on an Insys medical advisory board has raised suspicion of him partaking in the scheme alongside Insys founder John Kapoor and several other Insys executives.

“Sure, I heard those type of things (about kickbacks). Did Torgny ever, or did anybody in the organization ever, offer me anything like that? Absolutely not,” says Simon. “So from my own experience, my relationship with Subsys or Insys the company was virtually the same as it was with any other company I dealt with. It was professional.”

It is unclear whether Andersson’s whistleblower suit will affect the three civil cases against Simon, as Andersson was named among several Insys employees as a defendant in these cases. Kapoor has asked that civil actions against Insys be put on hold until the criminal charges are resolved, and their trial is currently scheduled to take place in January 2019.

Leave a Comment

Taking A Stand Against Drug Abuse in Southwest Virginia

As part of an ongoing effort to confront prescription drug abuse in Virginia, Wagstaff and Cartmell, LLP has recently joined forces with a team of local and international lawyers to sue major prescription drug manufacturers and distributors on behalf of Smyth, Wythe and Russel counties in southwest Virginia. Taxpayers have lost millions of dollars each year due to drug abuse, and attorneys representing the counties claim that the companies are to blame for the negligent prescribing and distribution of opioid medications to a vulnerable population.

“We want to be able to recover compensation for our communities and our counties that have suffered these tremendous losses because of the increased incarcerations and the increased law enforcement presence, social services, medical, and the list just goes on and on,” said Virginia Senator Ben Chafin, one of the lawyers who has agreed to represent this case.

Local and National Calls-to-Action

In addition to Senator Ben Chafin, Virginia Delegate Jeff Campbell and Attorney Kimberly C. Haugh of Abingdon, VA have also taken on the case to help their fellow Virginians receive compensation for their losses. At the national level, Wagstaff and Cartmell, LLP of Kansas City, as well as Dumas Law Firm, LLC of Mobile, AL are also joining in the litigation.

Each of the individual counties are expected to prepare their own unique and individual filings, and attorneys expect that additional southwest Virginia counties will seek representation as evidence for the case grows.

“There are a number of other counties throughout southwest Virginia who we have appeared at board meetings and given a presentation for. We understand they are currently in the process of choosing representation, so we expect we will be representing a large number of counties in southwest Virginia, Chafin said.

What Happens Next?

Specific defendants have not yet been named in the case yet, but it is thought that they will be major prescription drug manufacturers and distributors. Attorneys predict that the cases in Virginia will likely be involved in the multi-jurisdictional litigation suits currently being heard in Cleveland, OH. The Virginia cases are expected to be filed to the U.S. District Court in Abingdon, VA during the week of May 15, 2018.

“We will have to build an economic model and we have hired preeminent economists nationwide to [build it]. It will be unique to the individual county, but I can fairly safely tell you we’re talking additional millions of dollars per year in lost revenue addressing the impact as a result of the opioid crisis,” Jeff Campbell said.

How the cases in Virginia will play out in comparison to the Ohio cases—and other similar cases that may begin litigation across the country—remains yet to be seen. Considering our past history of representing mass tort drug cases at the national level, we hope that the additional expertise our colleagues bring to the Virginia cases will ensure that thousands of Virginia citizens are awarded the justice and resources they rightfully deserve.

Leave a Comment

Jeff Kuntz nets a $35 Million Verdict

After a nine day trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, a nine-member jury returned a $35 million verdict in favor of a northwest Indiana couple, Barbara and Anton Kaiser, for the injuries Barbara incurred from a Johnson & Johnson product, the Prolift transvaginal mesh.  The jurors found that Johnson & Johnson, and its sub-division Ethicon, negligently designed the Prolift and failed to adequately warn of the device’s risks.  The jury awarded the Kaisers $10 million in compensation for their injuries, and $25 million in punitive damages as punishment to Johnson & Johnson for its willful and wanton disregard for patient safety. The case is Barbara Kaiser et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al., Case Number 2:17-cv-00114, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.  Jeff Kuntz was Co-Lead Counsel with Tom Plouff and Ed Wallace.  Andy Faes of Wagstaff and Cartmell helped second chair the case.