Special Master Opens Door to Junk Science in Thousands of Talc Cases

This week, U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson advised the judge overseeing the talc multidistrict litigation (MDL) that plaintiffs’ proposed experts should be permitted to testify regarding an alleged causal link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.

Judge Wolfson, now retired, previously presided over talc litigation and made her recommendation to U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp. She was asked to re-examine the admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert testimony under the recently amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which strengthens judges’ gatekeeping responsibilities to exclude unreliable or speculative scientific evidence. Judge Wolfson had initially allowed this expert testimony in 2020.

This latest ruling represents yet another disappointing development in litigation long plagued by junk science. Questionable scientific claims have repeatedly served as the foundation for multimillion-dollar verdicts involving talcum powder. Notably, the American Cancer Society has acknowledged that evidence linking talc use to ovarian cancer is mixed, emphasizing that any potential increase in risk appears to be minimal, if it exists at all.

One of the plaintiffs’ experts, Dr. Jacqueline Moline, authored a 2020 study citing 33 mesothelioma cases allegedly linked to cosmetic talc. However, unsealed court records later revealed that several study subjects had alternative asbestos exposures and that Dr. Moline’s article mischaracterized key facts, misleading both the scientific literature and juries. This kind of agenda-driven, junk science is precisely what amended Rule 702 was designed to prevent from reaching the courtroom.