LOS ANGELES – A physician who has treated hundreds of patients exposed to asbestos said on Tuesday that Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder was the cause of Amy Fong’s mesothelioma, not from breathing air in Hong Kong as Johnson & Johnson lawyers allege.
“Do you have an opinion what caused Mrs. Fong’s mesothelioma?” asked Joseph Satterley, Fong’s attorney.
“I do,” responded Jacqueline Moline, a New York-based occupational medical doctor.
“What is it?”
“Mrs. Fong has mesothelioma as a result of her exposure to cosmetic talc (powder),” Moline said.
The trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court is being streamed live courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
Fong, 48, sued Johnson & Johnson and its talc powder supplier, Imerys Talc America, claiming she developed mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lungs, as a result of breathing in asbestos-contaminated baby powder over a long period of time.
The case is among the latest of hundreds of lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson by women across the country, most alleging the company’s talcum powder products caused them to develop ovarian cancer. Mesothelioma is a much-rarer disease with 3,200 cases in the U.S. reported annually.
Johnson & Johnson won two recent court cases, one a retrial in Torrance after a jury had deadlocked in a trial in 2018. A third trial ended in a $40 million plaintiff verdict.
In an unusual development, officials of Johnson & Johnson announced on Oct. 18 it would recall 33,000 bottles of baby powder for possible contamination from asbestos, according to a CVN report.
But on Tuesday, Johnson & Johnson announced that two third-party labs retested 15 samples and found no signs of asbestos that prompted the recall.
Moline appeared for a second day of testimony. She said Fong, formerly a resident of Hong Kong, used Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder from the time she was an infant and was powdered by her mother. That talc had been mined in Korea. The company also acquired talc from mines in Italy, Vermont and, more recently, China.
Fong continued to use the product as an adult. Today she lives in Pasadena.
Moline told the court that bottles of powder tested by William Longo, a microscope researcher based in Georgia, had tested positive for asbestos. Longo, an important plaintiff expert witness in past trials, is expected to testify next week.
“If it’s in fiber form, it means it can be breathed and cause disease,” Moline explained.
Moline said children are particularly vulnerable to asbestos fibers since they breathe in more than adults do because of a higher respiratory rate. Children also have more time to acquire the disease over a long time, called a "latency period."
“It can take 45 years of latency (period from exposure to onset of disease),” Moline said.
Satterley sought to rebuke the theory argued by Johnson & Johnson company lawyers that asbestos exposure in the air in Hong Kong from an incinerator caused Fong's disease.
“Did you make an analysis of living in Hong Kong?” he asked.
“There was no information provided to me," Moline said. “She (Fong) was asked if she was exposed to insulation in the walls (in Hong Kong). She never recalled any construction there or exposure in the community.”
“Would you say if you live in a city, you were exposed?” Satterley asked.
Moline said there would not be enough information to make such a judgment.
Moline also disputed another contention by company attorneys that Fong’s mesothelioma could be “spontaneous,” caused for no known reason.
“A cancer can occur suddenly, but that doesn’t mean there’s not a reason for it,” Moline said.
She said genetic testing of Fong for likelihood of developing cancer turned up no warning markers.
“She wasn’t born with bad genes,” Moline noted.
A major issue in past talc trials has been cleavage fragments, which are crushed minerals in the milling of talc powder that can look like asbestos fibers and whether they are asbestos or not.
Moline indicated that calling something a cleavage fragment that is fiber-shaped does not mean it’s not asbestos.
“The body doesn’t care what you call it,” she said. “If it’s fibrous form like asbestos that is what it should be considered, not some geologic term (cleavage fragment).”
On cross-examination, Kimberly Branscome, an attorney for Johnson & Johnson, sought to portray Moline as a highly-paid, plaintiff-only expert witness.
“You’ve never met Mrs. Fong,” she said.
“Correct,” Moline said.
“You spent about nine hours (reviewing) on this case?”
“Correct.”
“You testify for plaintiffs about once a month?”
"Give or take,” Moline agreed.
“You’ve made millions (testifying) over 20 years, correct?”
Moline agreed, but noted the hospital she worked for received money from her testimony while she personally billed for researching trial cases.
“You testify 100 percent of the time at the request of plaintiffs?”
“Yes.”
Branscome said Moline had never attributed mesothelioma to cosmetic talc before being hired as a plaintiff witness.
“Before 2008 you didn’t consider it a source?” Branscome asked.
“Yes,” Moline said.
"You would rely on the opinion of a geologist or a mineralogist on whether a mine contained asbestos?"
"I do not do that work, so yes," Moline said.
"You have done no testing of baby powder?"
"No."
"You don't have the expertise to determine if talc contains asbestos?"
"Correct."