St. Louis, MO — A Missouri state court jury delivered a $495 million verdict against Abbott Laboratories on Friday, concluding that the company’s specialty infant formula contributed to a severe intestinal condition in a premature baby from Illinois. The ruling marks the first in a series of nationwide lawsuits targeting similar claims about the safety of such formulas.
The lawsuit, initiated by Illinois resident Margo Gill, centered on the argument that Abbott failed to adequately warn of the risks associated with its formula, which can lead to necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a life-threatening disease affecting the bowels of newborns, particularly those born prematurely.
In its decision, the jury awarded $95 million in compensatory damages and a striking $400 million in punitive damages, reflecting serious concerns about Abbott’s practices regarding their product’s safety disclosures. This decision came with the agreement of nine out of 12 jurors, meeting Missouri’s requirement that three-fourths of jurors concur in civil lawsuits.
Jack Garvey, representing Gill, emphasized the importance of transparency in the market, stating, “Companies need to be honest about their products, about the good and the bad. When there is a risk of using a baby formula for preterm infants, parents have a right to know what the problems are.”
However, Abbott has expressed disagreement with the verdict. Scott Stoffel, a company spokesperson, highlighted that specialized formulas are crucial for feeding premature infants who might not have other options. Stoffel expressed concerns about the implications of the jury’s decision, citing potential impacts on the availability of these essential medical products.
The condition at the heart of this case, NEC, notoriously affects the most vulnerable infants, with a fatality rate ranging from 15% to 40%. In the case brought by Gill, her daughter, Robynn Davis, survived her encounter with NEC in 2021 but sustained permanent neurological damage from the affliction, necessitating ongoing, intensive care.
Abbott defended its product during the trial, arguing that Robynn’s health issues were due to birth-related complications, not the formula itself. However, the plaintiff countered that Abbott’s product escalated the risk of NEC, a point that resonated with the jury given their verdict.
The litigation landscape surrounding NEC and infant formulas is broad, with nearly 1,000 lawsuits filed against either Abbott or the maker of Enfamil, Reckitt Benckiser, sprawling across several state and federal courts. These cases argue that the manufacturers failed to warn healthcare providers adequately about the elevated risks of NEC linked to formula feeding as opposed to breastfeeding or using donor milk.
Responding to similar legal challenges, Reckitt Benckiser experienced a notable $60 million jury verdict against them earlier this year in Illinois, a decision the company is currently appealing on the basis that it rested on questionable expert testimony.
This legal turmoil has stirred investor apprehensions, notably impacting Reckitt’s stock prices, which have yet to recover fully since the March verdict.
As the NEC-related litigation unfolds, the NEC Society, a non-profit organization, has voiced concerns about the broader implications of these cases, suggesting that feeding decisions for vulnerable patients should hinge on medical expertise and patient-specific needs at the bedside, rather than be dictated by courtroom outcomes.
It is important to note that these NEC cases are distinct from other ongoing legal issues faced by Abbott, particularly concerning the 2022 recall of baby formulas from its Sturgis, Michigan, plant over contamination fears that exacerbated a national formula shortage. Trials related to the recall have not yet commenced.