After a court awarded $4.69 billion to a group of women alleging that asbestos in talcum powder caused ovarian cancer, legal experts say this approach could benefit future claimants.

In the recent trial, the plaintiffs’ attorney implemented a risky strategy of claiming asbestos in talcum powder may cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, two types of cancer often reported in baby powder cancer lawsuits. Whereas past lawsuits have claimed that the talc itself causes cancer, the plaintiffs’ argument hinged on the presence of asbestos in talcum powder.

Plaintiffs in other lawsuits have made the argument that asbestos in talcum powder can cause mesothelioma. But in the baby powder cancer trial that ended last week, the plaintiffs raised a novel argument linking asbestos to ovarian cancer, according to Law360.

Last week during trial, the plaintiffs’ attorney argued that Johnson & Johnson internal documents showed that the company knew about the presence of asbestos in talcum powder but continued selling their talc products. His argument was successful, resulting in a $4.69 billion verdict benefiting 22 women.

When Jean Eggen, emeritus professor at Widener University Delaware Law School, first hear about this new argument, she thought he was taking a “hard to prove” approach.

“My skepticism was I thought it combined the problems with both of cases, being able to prove a connection between ovarian cancer and talc and having to show that asbestos could cause something other than mesothelioma with regard to talc,” Eggen told Law360. “But then you add a contaminant to the product, asbestos, and it’s a contaminant that’s known to cause various health problems, and that seems to have helped,” she said. “Once they were able to show asbestos in talc […] then the idea it causes health problems is easier.”

Although the plaintiffs’ argument was successful, mass tort defense attorney Mark Raffman of Goodwin Procter LLP wonders if the asbestos in talcum powder theory and its evidence will hold up in the long term.

“I’m skeptical about the asbestos in talc,” Raffman said to Law360. “You would expect widespread application of a carcinogenic product would lead to a substantial increase in the number of ovarian cancers, like you saw in asbestos with mesothelioma […] If there’s good epidemiologic evidence, I haven’t seen it.”

Both Eggen and Raffman think that the $4.69 billion may be reduced. The experts also think that an appeals court may reexamine the verdict and call for more evidence regarding asbestos in talcum powder.

Should the verdict be upheld, this may offer a new approach to talc powder cancer lawsuits. This may mean more plaintiffs can get the compensation through the legal process after developing talcum powder cancer. However, it may also give Johnson & Johnson more incentive to fight these lawsuits, which Raffman thinks is a likely outcome.

“I don’t see another way they can go, especially since the science question is a real question,” he said. “A mass tort litigation is a long chess game played. The chess board is years in cases and jurisdictions. So the plaintiffs bar has made a move, and it’s going to be up to the defense bar to counter.”