The record
Johnson & Johnson scientist T.M. Thompson warned internally against extending tremolite-bearing talc usage beyond an absolute minimum absent substantial evidence of no adverse effect.
Claim scope
The verbatim warning language, attributed by a published appellate opinion to a named company scientist.
What this source does not establish
CRITICAL: the opinion does NOT date the Thompson warning. The sentence sits immediately after the 1969-memorandum sentence and immediately before “Memoranda from the 1970s also reveal...”, which invites but does not support the inference that Thompson authored the 1969 memo. Do NOT write 'the 1969 Thompson memo' — the opinion does not say that. Write 'Thompson's warning, which the court recounts alongside the 1969 memorandum'.
Limitations
Ingham recites each internal document under the express predicate "According to Plaintiffs' evidence" and under the standard "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict." The court's HOLDING is that Plaintiffs made a submissible case for punitive damages; it is NOT an independent judicial finding that each recounted document says what plaintiffs said it says. Phrase as: 'the Missouri Court of Appeals, upholding the punitive award, recounted plaintiffs' evidence that...' Additionally the date attribution is an inference the opinion does not make.
Source
Case Citation — Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. ED107476 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. June 23, 2020)