For 15 years and counting, the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder litigation saga continues to unfold in our nation’s court system, adding further proof to the unfortunate truism that the wheels of justice turn slowly. This mass tort case, involving allegations that the company’s baby powder products cause ovarian cancer, was recently moved to Texas in hopes that a Lone Star forum would facilitate a quick resolution.

The legal community and other intense observers of this monumental court case will likely remain in the grips of this reality TV saga as they speculate on how it will unfold and the critical role the Texas legal system will play in achieving a final ruling. However, courts will not need to issue rulings from the bench. Johnson & Johnson has released a proposed settlement plan to give plaintiffs a significant victory by securing the financial compensation they sought when filing the initial lawsuit.

Johnson & Johnson’s proposed plan offers what any objective observer would consider a more than fair settlement for those affected by J&J’s talc products. The settlement offer ensures that plaintiffs collectively receive a whopping $6.4 billion in financial compensation. Another benefit is that plaintiffs hold the key to deciding the fate of their case, giving them final decision-making authority. What offers even more peace of mind for a quick outcome is that the majority of the plaintiff attorneys involved are fully on board with the plan.

If the talc-related mass tort litigation had been handled correctly from the beginning, specifically by preventing erroneous scientific claims from being admitted into evidence, the case would not have dragged on as long as it did. In fact, anyone who has followed this case has witnessed numerous admissions of erroneous scientific claims in the court record, swamping the judges and their ability to make sound and efficient decisions.

From the beginning, the integrity of the scientific evidence presented to the court should have been rigorously examined. Properly vetted scientific evidence ensures that court rulings are based on reliable and accurate information. However, in this litigation, we have seen questionable scientific claims enter the courtroom, muddying the waters and complicating the judicial process.

The introduction of unproven testimony and opinions has prolonged the case, impeded judicial efficiency, and eroded public trust. By ensuring that only credible, well-vetted scientific claims are considered, courts can better serve justice and provide timely solutions to those who suffer. Fortunately, the proposed plan not only ensures that plaintiffs are adequately rewarded, but also prevents junk science from further impacting this case.

With its strong legal framework, Texas is now positioned to demonstrate its ability to handle high-profile cases like this effectively and honorably, while perhaps establishing a framework for other states to follow. Supporting this plan benefits all parties involved.

Gerard Scimeca is president and co-founder of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy/InsideSources.com.