Connecticut Judge Adds $10 Million Punitive Damage Award to Johnson & Johnson Mesothelioma Verdict
In October 2024, a Bridgeport, CT jury awarded a $15 million verdict for compensatory damages to mesothelioma victim Evan Plotkin against Johnson & Johnson for his exposure to asbestos-contaminated baby powder. Mr. Plotkin retained the law firm of Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen (ELSM) to represent him in his mesothelioma lawsuit. After reviewing the facts of case, most notably the victim’s past talc exposure, ELSM decided to bring in trusted co-counsel partner Dean Omar Branham Shirley (DOBS) to assist on the case.
The trial team consisting of Brian Kenney of ELSM and Ben Braley and Ethan Horn of DOBS presented facts to the jury including Mr. Plotkin’s longtime personal use of Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and then later use of the product on his children. Internal company documents showed that Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that their talcum powder products could have been contaminated with asbestos yet did nothing to warn consumers. The company stopped selling their talc-based baby powder in 2022, switching to a cornstarch-based formula.
After hearing all arguments and awarding Mr. Plotkin $15 million in compensatory damages, according to the plaintiff, the jury also found that Johnson & Johnson’s conduct was reckless, intentional, malicious and “extremely reprehensible”, and therefore included punitive damages in the verdict. Trial court judges in Connecticut have the exclusive authority to determine the amount of punitive damages when a jury determines they are warranted.
In October 2025, the court awarded an additional $10 million to Mr. Plotkin in punitive damages from Johnson & Johnson for a total award of $25 million.
Post-Verdict Update
October 15, 2025 - Johnson & Johnson entities (including Kenvue, LTL Management, and others) filed a motion to set aside the verdict and request a new trial. The plaintiffs opposed the motion.
Under Connecticut law, a verdict may be set aside only if it is manifestly unjust. For example, if the jury misapplied the law or there was no supporting evidence. Courts also have broad discretion over whether to admit expert testimony.
The J&J entities argued that the trial court should have excluded several of the plaintiffs’ experts, particularly Dr. Steven Haber, claiming his opinions relied too heavily on other experts and failed to meet admissibility standards. The court disagreed, finding that Connecticut law allows qualified experts to rely on the work of other experts when forming their opinions. It concluded that Dr. Haber and the plaintiffs’ other experts were all properly qualified and that their testimony met the required standards.
Because the jury’s findings were supported by evidence and reflected a clear intent, the court ruled the verdict was not manifestly unjust and that no errors occurred during trial. The court denied J&J’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial in its entirety.
Request a Free Case Evaluation
Request a free case evaluation now if you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma. The evaluation will cost you nothing. Our lawyers will travel to visit you at your convenience or conference call with you over the phone. We understand how difficult a time this is for you and will assist in any way that we can. You can also call us toll-free at 800-336-0086 at any time.
Attorney Meisenkothen is a member of several professional organizations, including the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, the American Association for Justice, the American Bar Association, and the Connecticut Bar Association.
Learn
More
