Plaintiffs in a group of baby powder cancer lawsuits have asked the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate their claims into a single baby powder MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

The motion to transfer was brought by plaintiff Tanashiska L.

She is one of several plaintiffs alleging that defendants Johnson & Johnson and others members of the talc industry failed to warn consumers about a risk of ovarian cancer associated with women’s use of talcum powder in the genital area.

The JPML sometimes consolidates similar legal claims into an MDL to coordinate pretrial procedures.

In cases where the evidence and arguments are roughly the same and where many of the same parties are involved, an MDL can help avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent court rulings.

It can also make participation more convenient for parties and witnesses.

Eleven Pending Claims Proposed for Baby Powder MDL

Tanashiska has asked the JPML to establish the baby powder MDL before U.S. District Judge David Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois.

She notes that Judge Herndon has years of experience handling complex MDLs such as those over Yasmins and Yaz birth control and Pradaxa anticoagulant medication.

Her motion for transfer names 11 pending talcum powder lawsuits, including her own claim and two proposed class action lawsuits, that she says would be suitable for transfer into the baby powder MDL.

Oral argument on the motion to establish the baby powder MDL is scheduled for late September.

Plaintiffs’ Allegations

Generally, the plaintiffs in the proposed baby powder MDL say that defendant J&J knew for years about a link between perineal use of talcum powder by women and their later development of ovarian cancer.

They claim several scientific studies have found a higher incidence of ovarian cancer among women who use talcum-based powders, like J&J’s Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower, in the genital area.

One study reportedly found particles of talc inside the tissue of several ovarian tumors.

Despite the availability of that information, the plaintiffs claim, J&J failed to warn the public about the associated risks. Some company documents revealed during the course of the litigation suggest that J&J was aware of the risk for decades.

Yet instead of issuing a warning, the company continued to actively market its talc-based products, the plaintiffs say. Some marketing campaigns allegedly targeted women specifically, without any warning about ovarian cancer.

Tanashiska’s motion for transfer also notes the existence of a large group of similar claims already pending in a Missouri state court in St. Louis.

Two state court lawsuits have gone to trial in state courts this year, both yielding multi-million jury awards for the plaintiffs. Another trial in one of the St. Louis cases is scheduled to begin in February 2017.

In federal court, the various pending baby powder cancer lawsuits include claims for fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, defective design or manufacture, failure to warn, breaches of express and implied warranties, and violations of state consumer protection laws.

Some plaintiffs are the spouses of affected women who are bringing claims for loss of consortium to seek compensation for the effect of their spouse’s ovarian cancer on their marital relationship.

Other claimants are the survivors of deceased cancer patients who are now bringing survival actions and wrongful death claims.