A Connecticut judge has increased a Johnson & Johnson mesothelioma verdict to $25 million, adding $10 million in punitive damages to a $15 million jury award for Somers resident Evan Plotkin. The punitive finding signals that courts are examining not just whether J&J’s products caused harm, but whether the company’s decades-long concealment of known risks constituted willful misconduct.
The Case
Plotkin filed suit in 2021 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma, alleging decades of exposure to asbestos-contaminated talcum powder. He used J&J’s baby powder on himself starting in the 1950s and later on his children through the 2000s, representing approximately 50 years of regular exposure.
In October 2024, a Bridgeport Superior Court jury awarded $15 million in compensatory damages after hearing evidence that J&J knew its talc could contain tremolite asbestos, a mineral mined from the same geological deposits, yet failed to warn consumers. The evidence included internal company documents showing awareness of contamination risks.
Punitive Damages
The jury found J&J’s conduct was “reckless, intentional, malicious, and extremely reprehensible,” warranting punitive damages. Under Connecticut law, trial judges have exclusive authority to set punitive damage amounts after a jury determines they are warranted.
On October 1, 2025, the court added $10 million in punitive damages, bringing the total to $25 million. Plotkin’s legal team at Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP had sought $30 million in punitive damages. J&J subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied.
Connecticut is one of several states where judges, not juries, determine the amount of punitive damages. A jury first decides whether the defendant’s conduct warrants punishment beyond compensatory damages. If so, the judge determines the appropriate amount. This two-step process is intended to balance accountability with proportionality.
J&J’s Response
Erik Haas, Johnson & Johnson’s Worldwide Vice President of Litigation, announced the company would “immediately appeal the erroneous rulings” and characterized the verdict as based on “junk science.” J&J maintains its talc products never caused mesothelioma and has pointed to a South Carolina case where the company prevailed.
The company transitioned to cornstarch-based baby powder by 2023, stating that market preferences, not safety concerns, drove the change. However, internal documents presented at trial suggest the company was aware of contamination risks decades before the product was reformulated.
Part of Mounting Verdicts
The Plotkin verdict joins a pattern of substantial awards against J&J:
- $1.56 billion to Cherie Craft in Baltimore (December 2025), the largest single talc verdict
- $966 million to Mae Moore’s family in California (October 2025)
- $65.5 million to a Minnesota mother with pleural mesothelioma
- $42.6 million to Paul Lovell’s family in Massachusetts (July 2025)
- $20 million to the Casaretto family in Florida (October 2025)
More than 67,000 talc lawsuits remain pending against the company nationwide.
What was the Plotkin v. Johnson & Johnson verdict?▼
A Bridgeport Superior Court jury awarded Evan Plotkin $15 million in compensatory damages in October 2024 after finding that J&J’s talc products caused his mesothelioma. The trial judge subsequently added $10 million in punitive damages, bringing the total to $25 million, after the jury found J&J’s conduct was “reckless, intentional, malicious, and extremely reprehensible.”
Why were punitive damages awarded?▼
The jury found that J&J’s conduct warranted punishment beyond compensatory damages, determining it was “reckless, intentional, malicious, and extremely reprehensible.” Under Connecticut law, the judge then set the punitive damage amount at $10 million. Punitive damages are intended to punish particularly egregious corporate behavior and deter future misconduct.
How was Evan Plotkin exposed to asbestos?▼
Plotkin used Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder on himself starting in the 1950s and later applied it to his children through the 2000s, representing approximately 50 years of regular use. The lawsuit alleged that J&J’s talc was contaminated with tremolite asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral found in the same geological deposits as talc.
Is J&J appealing the verdict?▼
Yes. J&J announced it would immediately appeal, calling the verdict based on “junk science.” The company also filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied. Appeals in complex product liability cases can take one to three years, during which the verdict amount may be modified.