TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) - A unit of Johnson & Johnson fighting claims talcum powder causes cancer wants the identities of all alleged victims cited in a report that gave plaintiff lawyers fuel for the multibillion-dollar litigation.
The report has drawn criticism from a federal judge in North Carolina who late last year determined Dr. Jacqueline Moline had hid evidence one subject had made a Workers' Compensation claim for asbestos exposure - even though Moline concluded talcum powder was the only plausible explanation for their mesothelioma.
Now, Johnson & Johnson's LTL wants the names of the 33 people studied for her report. LTL wants to find out if there are other individuals who were exposed to asbestos from products other than Baby Powder.
If it can do so, it should have a major impact on LTL's bankruptcy resolution. The company said Moline's report was recently cited in a claim it received from a plaintiff lawyer last month.
"Plaintiff has an urgent need to determine the scope of the misstatements in the Moline article," LTL wrote in a Jan. 17 motion in New Jersey federal court.
"Without any way to determine how much of the research sample Dr. Moline misrepresented, plaintiff is hamstrung in its ability to respond."
LTL accuses Moline of pushing a "false narrative" in litigation that has seen a battle-of-experts over whether talc even contains asbestos. Her study has been used by dozens of other plaintiff experts to support their opinions that talc causes mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the chest wall.
On Dec. 16, LTL accused Moline of outright fraud, identifying at least five study subjects who had claimed other sources of asbestos exposure.
Moline 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.”
LTL also accuses Moline of an intentional delay in the litigation against her. A week before her response was due, her attorney withdrew because of a conflict of interest, and Moline asked for an extension.
At the same time, LTL has asked for expedited discovery.
"This court should put a stop to Dr. Moline's continuing quest to hide the truth," it says.
"The most straightforward way to do so would be to extend defendant's time to file a responsive pleading, to which plaintiff has agreed, but require that, in the interim, defendant produce the single five-page document identifying the individuals who participated in the study - all of whom were identified through litigation and thus chose to waive any privacy rights by putting their alleged injuries at issue in a lawsuit."
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.