ST. LOUIS – On the day that plaintiffs rested their case, an attorney for Johnson & Johnson (J&J) brought in his own expert witness seeking to undermine the testimony of 22 women in a lawsuit claiming they developed ovarian cancer from the use of asbestos-laced baby powder.
“Does Dr. (William) Longo call things asbestos even if they’re not?” asked Morton Dubin of the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, attorney for Johnson & Johnson, on June 27 in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri.
“Yes,” answered Dr. Matthew Sanchez, an investigator for the RJ Lee Group, a materials lab and industrial forensics consulting firm based in Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
However, the attorney for the plaintiffs, Mark Lanier, on later cross-examination sought to portray Sanchez as a hired talc industry mouthpiece and a professional witness.
Coverage of the trial is being streamed courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
The Johnson & Johnson counsel sought to dispute findings by Dr. William Longo, scientist and electron microscope researcher with the Georgia-based MAS lab. Longo’s findings have been cited in the trial frequently by Lanier alleging that the asbestos in the J&J product caused the deadly disease.
Dubin asked Sanchez about his job duties.
“I analyze minerals for asbestos,” Sanchez said. “I go to mines to evaluate the presence of asbestos.”
Asbestos is a form of mineral that had been used extensively in the building trades, shipyards and for electrical work.
Examinations of the women revealed some had traces of tremolite, a mineral that can contain asbestos. Other minerals that can be associated with asbestos include chrysotile, crocidolite, anthophyllite and talc, used as a powder in Johnson & Johnson baby products.
Talc has been mined from three locations for use in J&J products, including: from the Val Chisone mining region in Italy from 1926 to 1973; Windsor, Vermont from 1964 to 2003; and most recently Guangxi, China, from 2003 to the present.
“Does the word 'tremolite' mean asbestos?” Dubin asked.
“No,” Sanchez answered.
“You know asbestos when you see it,” Dubin said.
“Absolutely,” Sanchez responded.
Dubin contended the findings by Longo were based not on a preponderance of evidence and included not using the best microscope for the job.
Dubin indicated Longo had been identifying samplings asbestos when they were not.
“He’s calling it all asbestos,” Sanchez said.
“Whether it’s asbestos or not?” Dubin asked.
“Correct; it’s an assumption it’s all asbestos,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez testified non-asbestos minerals can have elongated fibers making them appear to be asbestos.
“If you crush a rock, you can have elongated fragments; but that doesn’t make those fragments asbestos,” Sanchez said.
Under cross-examination, Lanier referred to Sanchez as a “jukebox witness,” someone who is paid to sing the song his industry boss wants him to sing.
“I strongly disagree,” Sanchez said of the characterization.
Lanier said Sanchez had no qualifications to comment on biological issues concerning asbestos exposure in tissues.
Lanier called Sanchez a professional witness.
“That’s what you really do for a living,” Lanier said.
“Historically no, but cases consume the majority of my time,” Sanchez responded.
“Not the majority,” Lanier countered. “It’s what you do.”
“I do other things,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez agreed he had been retained in more than 100 cases by Johnson & Johnson.
Lanier said Sanchez had earned $600,000 appearing as a witness in three cases over the past six months and asked the witness if he knew RJ Lee had been defending asbestos cases for 30 years.
“I can’t say,” Sanchez said.
“Sure you can,” Lanier responded.
Lanier asked Sanchez if he agreed with a word he said had been used to describe RJ Lee by respected science circles that the company was a “whore.”
“I vehemently disagree,” Sanchez responded.
Lanier produced documentation that said Longo had used the best tools in his research including his choice of a microscope.
“The TEM (transmission electron microscope) is the most useful for the detection and identification of asbestos fibers smaller than the resolving power limit of the PLM (polarized light microscope),” the document read.