A federal judge in New Jersey has revived a trade libel lawsuit filed by Johnson & Johnson’s talc subsidiary against mesothelioma researcher and frequent expert witness Dr. Jacqueline Moline. The judge ruled that new evidence presented by Pecos River Talc is sufficient to overcome First Amendment protections for scientific debate.
Patient Featured in Mesothelioma Article Identifies Alternative Asbestos Exposures
Last week, U.S. District Judge Georgette Castner reversed a 2024 decision in Pecos River Talc’s mesothelioma libel suit based on her review of new evidence. The new information showed that Dr. Moline had known that one of the patients profiled in her research had asbestos exposure beyond the talc that was the subject of her article in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, which asserted each patient had “no known asbestos exposure other than cosmetic talcum powder.”
Over the last several years, Dr. Moline’s mesothelioma research has been widely cited to support the idea that exposure to asbestos-contaminated talcum powders like Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder “can cause mesothelioma.” According to Pecos River Talc’s complaint, her findings have had a significant impact on juries, and has led to Johnson & Johnson being ordered to pay billions of dollars in damages.
Mesothelioma Expert Accused of Knowing of Other Asbestos Exposures
Pecos River has alleged both that the central premise of Dr. Moline’s mesothelioma article is false and that she knew it when the article was published. The company claims that her role as an expert witness in over 200 cosmetic-talc cases allowed her to review deposition transcripts and medical records showing that many individuals had alternative asbestos exposures, yet she had omitted this information from her study.
The critical point in the judge’s decision came after a New York appellate court authorized the deanonymization of the mesothelioma patients profiled in the study. Once those files were made available, they showed that there were patients included in the study who had a known asbestos exposure beyond having used cosmetic talc, and that those exposures could have been responsible for their diagnosis. One specific patient, Carol Schoeniger, testified that her husband had sanded and applied asbestos-containing joint compound in their home in the 1960s. Though Dr. Moline had identified that exposure during Mrs. Schoeniger’s mesothelioma lawsuit but omitted it from the article she published in 2020, which is the subject of the libel case.
Judge Calls Omitted Mesothelioma Data a Fabrication
In her decision, Judge Castner wrote, “The extensiveness of the fraudulent nature of the article demonstrates that Dr. Moline fabricated the data presented in her article.” If proven, the doctor will no longer be shielded by the First Amendment protections pertaining to scientific debate, and this will change the case from a factual dispute to a question of whether the doctor knowingly made false factual assertions.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you need guidance from experienced, knowledgeable professionals. Contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.