After receiving a devastating ovarian cancer diagnosis, a New York woman is seeking to hold Johnson & Johnson accountable for failing to warn about the risk of talcum powder use and cancer.

Plaintiff Mary Jo S. filed the lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson on Nov. 7, alleging her ovarian cancer diagnosis was the direct result of her regular and prolonged use of talcum powder containing products Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower in the perineal area.

Mary Jo used Johnson’s talcum powder products for feminine hygiene for most of her adult life.  In 2010, at the age of 47, she received an ovarian cancer diagnosis which required surgeries and treatment.

She claims that Johnson & Johnson was aware of the “unreasonable dangerous and carcinogenic nature” of it talc-based powders, especially when used in a woman’s perineal regions, but chose not to warn consumers of this danger.

Studies Link Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis to Talc Use

Historically, Johnson’s Baby Powder has been a symbol of freshness, cleanliness and purity.

In fact, Johnson & Johnson advertises and markets it talcum powder products as the beacon of “freshness” and “comfort”, eliminating friction on the skin, absorbing “excess wetness,” helping to keep skin feeling dry and comfortable, and “clinically proven gentle and mild.”

According to the baby powder cancer lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson compelled women through advertisements to “dust themselves with this product to mask odor,” specifically targeting them by stating “For you, use every day to help feel soft, fresh, and comfortable.”

However, despite advertising their talcum powder products as safe for everyday use, the dangers and risks of talcum powder for feminine hygiene use date back to the early 1980s – something Johnson & Johnson was purportedly aware of, according to Mary Jo’s lawsuit.

In 1982, the first epidemiologic study was performed on talc powder use in the female genital area. The study found a 92 percent increased risk in ovarian cancer diagnosis with women who reported genital talc use.

Shortly after this study was published, a Johnson & Johnson doctor visited the lead researcher of the study and was advised that Johnson & Johnson should place a warning label on its talcum powder about the ovarian cancer risks so that women could make an informed decision about their health, the lawsuit states.

Since the 1982 study, there have been more than 20 additional epidemiologic studies providing date regarding the association of talc use and ovarian cancer diagnosis.

Nearly all of these studies have reported an elevated risk for ovarian cancer associated with genital talc use in women, the lawsuit reads.

Filing a Baby Powder Cancer Lawsuit

Many juries have already found Johnson & Johnson liable for failing to warn about cancer risks and use of their talc-based products.

More recently in October, a 63-year old California woman who received an ovarian cancer diagnosis was awarded $70 million over Johnson & Johnson’s alleged negligence.

Two other baby powder cancer verdicts were handed down this year for $72 million and $55 million, though Johnson & Johnson is appealing these cases.

As of Oct 4., all federal lawsuits claiming that talcum powder products made by Johnson & Johnson can lead to an ovarian  cancer diagnosis have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation in New Jersey.

All of the lawsuits involve women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer or uterine cancer after using Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower-to-Shower for genital hygiene.

The company is also facing approximately 2,000 lawsuits in various state courts.

If you or your mother, sister, daughter, or other loved received an ovarian cancer diagnosis after using talcum powder, an experienced product liability attorney wants to help. You may be entitled to compensation for your pain and suffering, medical bills, and lost wages.

Mary Jo’s Baby Powder Cancer Lawsuit is filed within the larger multidistrict litigation, In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2738 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.