Lifetime of Talc Exposure Blamed for 42-Year-Old’s Malignant Mesothelioma Death

According to a lawsuit filed by Christopher Campise, his brother Jeffrey died of malignant mesothelioma after a lifetime of exposure to asbestos. Rather than coming from his workplace as is often the case, the 42-year-old’s exposure came from the talc products his mother used on herself and on him when he was a baby, and that he used himself as a young man. Though talc supplier Whitaker, Clark, & Daniels asked to be dismissed from the case, their petition for summary judgment was denied and the case will move forward.

Lawsuit Describes Talc Products Blamed for Mesothelioma Victim’s Death

Whitaker, Clark & Daniels was not the only company named in the mesothelioma lawsuit. Mr. Campise’s family cited various companies whose talc products he had been exposed to since the time he was born, including a variety of powder products that his mother had used on herself and on him.

The victim’s malignant mesothelioma was blamed on the Caldesene powder that had been used during his diaper changes as well as the talcum and body powder that his mother had used on herself and to which he was frequently exposed. Avon Imari, Avon Skin So Soft, Jean Nate talcum powder, and Chanel No. 5 Body Powder were all popular products, as was the Gold Bond Medicated Powder he used himself once he began engaging in athletics as a teen. Whitaker, Clark, and Daniels admittedly sold talc to each of those companies.

Mesothelioma Victim’s Family Seeks Economic and Punitive Damages from Talc Supplier

In their motion to have the mesothelioma case against them dismissed, the talc company pushed back on the notion that talc causes malignant mesothelioma. They also pointed to the fact that other companies had also provided some of the talc that the powder companies had used, and argued that Mr. Campise had not been exposed to enough talc to have caused his illness. Though the judge rejected these arguments and allowed the case to move forward, they agreed with the company that they should not be subject to a punitive damages award: this was because the company had consistently tested their product for safety.