Plaintiffs Urge Court to Uphold $25M Talc Verdict
Attorneys for a mesothelioma plaintiff ask the Connecticut Appellate Court to keep a $25 million judgment against Johnson & Johnson.
Updated on Nov. 2, 2026 in Cancer
Plaintiffs in an asbestos-containing talcum powder mesothelioma case filed a brief in the Connecticut Appellate Court urging it to uphold a $25 million judgment against Johnson & Johnson. They argue the trial court properly limited testimony from a Johnson & Johnson expert and correctly instructed the jury on successor liability.
Why it matters
The appeal tests whether a $25 million verdict tied to Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder will stand in Connecticut. The outcome could affect how talc-related mesothelioma claims are tried and how successor liability is applied to the company.
The figure at issue is a $25 million judgment in an asbestos-containing talc mesothelioma case, a verdict now before the Connecticut Appellate Court. The extraction does not provide comparator data, and the appellate court's ruling on the judgment and expert testimony is still pending.
The players
Johnson & Johnson
A multinational healthcare and consumer goods company that manufactures Johnson's Baby Powder, the talc product at the center of the litigation.
Connecticut Appellate Court
The intermediate appellate court of Connecticut, which is reviewing the $25 million judgment against Johnson & Johnson.
The details
Evan C. Plotkin and Martha Barry filed the action in September 2021, alleging Plotkin was exposed to asbestos-containing talc products. The plaintiffs argue they presented ample evidence that Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder caused their injuries and that the trial court properly limited a Johnson & Johnson expert's testimony.
Timeline
September 2021: Plotkin and Barry filed the action.
November 2, 2026: Plaintiffs' brief urging the appellate court to affirm the judgment was reported.
Legal Precedent
The case invokes successor liability under Connecticut and New Jersey law, with plaintiffs arguing the jury was properly instructed on that doctrine. How the appellate court treats that instruction will shape how the doctrine applies to talc mesothelioma claims going forward.
For people who used talc-based products and later developed mesothelioma, the outcome of this appeal may affect whether and how they can pursue compensation. The ruling could also influence the legal options available to families dealing with asbestos-related cancer diagnoses.
The takeaway
Asbestos-related litigation can take years to resolve through trial and appeal, so the status of a verdict matters for anyone affected. Readers with questions about exposure or legal options should consult qualified professionals.
Further reading
For more on related treatment and disease coverage, explore Cancer news on Wisevoter.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Harrismartin.
