Stock Markets February 13, 2026

Pennsylvania Jury Awards $250,000 to Family in Talc-Ovarian Cancer Case

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas finds Johnson & Johnson liable; damages split between compensatory and punitive awards

By Jordan Park JNJ
Pennsylvania Jury Awards $250,000 to Family in Talc-Ovarian Cancer Case
JNJ

A Philadelphia jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $250,000 to the family of Gayle Emerson, who alleged long-term use of the company’s talc-based baby powder caused her ovarian cancer. The verdict, returned in a Pennsylvania state court, included $50,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. Emerson filed suit in 2019 and died six months later; her children continued the case after her death.

Key Points

  • A Philadelphia jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $250,000 to the family of Gayle Emerson, who alleged her ovarian cancer was caused by the companys talc-based baby powder.
  • The damages were divided into $50,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages, according to attorney Chris Tisi.
  • The case was filed in 2019 by Emerson, who died six months later at age 68; her son and daughter continued the lawsuit after her death. The outcome has implications for legal and consumer-products stakeholders handling talc-related claims.

A Pennsylvania state court jury has concluded that Johnson & Johnson must pay a total of $250,000 to the family of a woman who linked her ovarian cancer to the company’s talc-based baby powder.

The verdict, handed down by a jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, favored relatives of Gayle Emerson. According to attorney Chris Tisi, who is representing plaintiffs in other talc-related federal cases, Emersons family argued that Johnson & Johnson knew its talc products posed risks but did not warn consumers.

The jurys award breaks down to $50,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages to Emersons family. Tisis comments identify him as counsel active in additional litigation over talc products at the federal level.

Court records show Emerson, a resident of Pennsylvania, filed the action in 2019. She died six months after filing the suit at age 68 following a battle with metastatic ovarian cancer. After her passing, Emersons son and daughter continued to prosecute the case on her behalf.

The complaint states that Emerson used Johnson & Johnsons baby powder from 1969 until 2017. She reportedly ceased using the product in 2017 after a relative informed her of a possible association between talc exposure and an increased risk of ovarian cancer. The lawsuit also notes Emerson had been diagnosed with cancer two years before she stopped using the product.

The jury decision adds to a body of litigation referenced by plaintiffs counsel, who is also involved in related federal court cases. The Philadelphia ruling is limited to the specific claims and evidence presented in this state-court matter.


Context and immediate outcome

The state-court jury found in favor of Emersons family and assigned a combined punitive and compensatory award of $250,000. The proceeding reflects a continuation of legal scrutiny surrounding talc-based consumer products.

What is known from the filings

  • Emerson filed the lawsuit in 2019 and died six months later at age 68 from metastatic ovarian cancer.
  • The lawsuit asserts continuous use of Johnson & Johnson baby powder from 1969 until 2017, when Emerson stopped after learning about possible cancer risk from a relative.
  • The jurys award consists of $50,000 compensatory and $200,000 punitive damages.

Risks

  • Ongoing and additional talc-related litigation - the article notes the plaintiffs counsel is involved in separate federal talc cases, indicating continued legal exposure for companies tied to talc products. This primarily affects the legal and consumer-products sectors.
  • Uncertainty for plaintiffs and defendants in related suits - while this jury returned a verdict in favor of Emersons family, the article reflects only this single state-court outcome and does not establish broader legal conclusions. This creates uncertainty for investors and stakeholders in affected consumer-goods firms.

More from Stock Markets

Moscow Market Closes Flat as Select Large-Caps Offset Losses Feb 21, 2026 Honeywell Reconsiders Purchase of Johnson Matthey Catalyst Unit as Closing Obstacles Emerge Feb 21, 2026 Indigenous Occupation Halts Operations at Cargill’s Santarem Terminal Feb 21, 2026 Market Turbulence Reinforces Case for Broader Diversification Feb 21, 2026 NYSE Holdings UK Ltd launches unified trading platform to streamline market access Feb 21, 2026