TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) - A bankrupt unit of Johnson & Johnson has sued one of the most prominent plaintiff experts in talc litigation, accusing her of knowingly promoting the “false narrative” that cosmetic talc causes cancer.
Dr. Jacqueline Moline helped propel talc litigation into a multibillion-dollar enterprise by publishing an article in 2019 claiming 33 anonymous mesothelioma victims had no known exposure to asbestos other than Johnson’s Baby Powder and other brands of talc. Her study has since been used by dozens of other plaintiff experts to support their own opinions that talc causes mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the chest wall associated with asbestos exposure.
Dr. Moline was criticized by a federal judge recently for undermining the credibility of her conclusions by failing to acknowledge she had reason to suspect her study subjects had other sources of asbestos exposure, since all 33 were involved in asbestos litigation and some had made claims against other defendants.
Johnson & Johnson upped the ante by accusing Dr. Moline of outright fraud in a Dec. 16 suit, identifying at least five study subjects who had claimed other sources of asbestos exposure, including in litigation where Moline had served as their expert witness.
“This most recent revelation concerning Dr. Moline’s deceit is only further affirmation of a long-running and troubling trend of doctors leveraging their credentials to fabricate false narratives and support `junk science’ to bolster the mass tort plaintiffs’ bar’s claims,” the company said in a lawsuit filed in the bankruptcy of its LTL unit, which J&J created to settle talc claims.
Dr. Moline didn’t respond to requests for comment. She is among a core group of plaintiff experts who have earned millions of dollars by supporting the theory cosmetic talc contains asbestos – which J&J and other producers deny – and that the deadly fibers are in sufficient concentration to cause cancer. Other experts critical to the plaintiffs’ theories include William Longo, who claims he has found asbestos fibers in decades-old talc samples; Dr. David Egilman, who edited a journal that published some early studies linking talc to cancer, and who has testified on everything from asbestos to supposedly dangerous popcorn fumes; and Ronald Gordon, a researcher who earlier in his career admitted to bank fraud and money laundering.
Dr. Moline earns several hundred thousand dollars a year working for plaintiff attorneys, J&J’s LTL unit claims in its lawsuit, and more than $3 million overall from talc litigation. In a bid to avoid having its case dismissed on freedom-of-speech grounds, LTL says Dr. Moline published her article and has testified before Congress and in court over supposed talc-cancer links “to further her own interest, gain fame, and gain fortune for herself.”
Attacking plaintiff experts and lawyers is an aggressive tactic that rarely yields obvious results other than possibly improving the terms of settlement. In one of the best-publicized cases, Garlock Sealing Technologies sued several asbestos law firms including Simon Greenstone Panatier, Waters & Krause and Belluck & Fox for racketeering after it said fraudulent asbestos claims forced it into bankruptcy. Garlock ultimately settled with the firms as part of an overall reorganization plan.
In its lawsuit against Dr. Moline, LTL says the researcher has persisted in saying she has no knowledge of other asbestos exposures even after defense lawyers have identified specific study subjects who claimed they were exposed to asbestos-wrapped pipes, cigarette filters and other sources.
Dr. Moline served as an expert witness in the case of Stephen Lanzo, for example, which LTL identified as “Case #6” in her study based upon identical information including his age and the fact he was diagnosed after developing chest pain playing hockey in 2012.
Another plaintiff expert identified crocidolite asbestos in Lanzo’s lung tissue, which Dr. Moline should have been aware of since she testified in his trial, the company said. Yet in her article she said none of the study subjects had been exposed to crocidolite, an industrial form of asbestos.
Dr. Moline also was an expert for Valerie Jo Dalis, who shared identical details with “Case #4,” yet Dalis submitted a claim for $450,000 and collected $28,000 from the Manville trust for victims of industrial asbestos exposure.
Dr. Moline and plaintiff lawyers have refused to identify any of the study subjects and plaintiff lawyers threatened to report an asbestos defense lawyer to the Department of Health and Human Services and the New York Bar for supposedly violating one woman’s privacy rights, even though she had signed a HIPAA release, LTL said.
Dr. Moline has served as a plaintiff expert in more than 200 cosmetic talc cases, testified in at least 46 and other experts have cited her research in dozens of cases. LTL said it is seeking financial damages as well as a court order prohibiting her from testifying in future cases.
“This cycle must end,” the company said in its filing.