Philadelphia Jury Urged to 'Send a Message' to Johnson & Johnson in Second Talc Trial

Attorneys for the estate of Gayle Emerson argue the company concealed asbestos in its baby powder for decades.

Published on Feb. 11, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A Philadelphia jury heard closing arguments in the second talc mass tort trial against Johnson & Johnson, with attorneys for the estate of Gayle Emerson urging jurors to hold the company accountable and 'send a message' with their verdict. Counsel emphasized Johnson & Johnson's substantial financial resources when considering punitive damages, arguing the company concealed for decades that its talc-based baby powder contained asbestos, a known carcinogen.

Why it matters

Johnson & Johnson has faced numerous talc-related lawsuits nationwide, resulting in several large verdicts. This case is part of a broader legal battle over the company's alleged concealment of asbestos in its baby powder products and the impact on consumers like Gayle Emerson.

The details

Beasley Allen attorney Leigh O'Dell, representing Emerson's estate, argued that Johnson & Johnson hid the presence of asbestos from regulators and consumers since the 1960s. During her closing argument, O'Dell highlighted the company's $72.27 billion net worth and urged the jury to factor that into any punitive damages award. Defense attorneys maintained that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder did not cause Emerson's cancer, arguing other factors like her history of using douches, obesity, age, and family medical history contributed to her ovarian cancer.

  • The first Philadelphia talc trial concluded in a defense victory in 2021.
  • The gap between trials was influenced by legal proceedings related to the company's talc unit spin-off and multiple unsuccessful bankruptcy attempts.

The players

Gayle Emerson

A Philadelphia native and tax preparer who used Johnson & Johnson's baby powder for decades and passed away in 2019.

Johnson & Johnson

A multinational corporation that has faced numerous talc-related lawsuits nationwide, resulting in several large verdicts.

Leigh P. O'Dell

An attorney at Beasley Allen Law Firm representing Emerson's estate.

Shaila Diwan

An attorney at Kirkland & Ellis LLP representing Johnson & Johnson.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Johnson & Johnson hid the presence of asbestos from the FDA, regulators, and consumers like Ms. Emerson since the 1960s. The evidence is clear.”

— Leigh O'Dell, Attorney, Beasley Allen Law Firm (usaherald.com)

“Whatever the amount, it should reflect the company's net worth and send a clear message.”

— Leigh O'Dell, Attorney, Beasley Allen Law Firm (usaherald.com)

“The evidence shows this was not caused by Johnson's baby powder.”

— Shaila Diwan, Attorney, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (usaherald.com)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on the final verdict and any punitive damages award.

The takeaway

This case is part of the ongoing legal battle over Johnson & Johnson's alleged concealment of asbestos in its baby powder products and the impact on consumers. The outcome could set a precedent for future talc-related lawsuits against the company.