Abbott Laboratories and Reckitt’s Mead Johnson division have been cleared of liability in a recent Missouri court case involving a young boy’s serious intestinal disease. The jury in St. Louis determined that Abbott and Mead Johnson were not responsible for the boy’s necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), an illness affecting premature infants, a result that marks a significant legal win for both companies after previous losses in similar cases.
The lawsuit was brought by Elizabeth Whitfield, whose son Kaine, now seven, was born extremely premature and weighed only about 1,000 grams, or 2.2 pounds. Fed a specialized formula at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, Kaine developed NEC, which led to significant health complications and required surgery. He is expected to face lifelong developmental and health challenges due to the disease. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Abbott and Mead Johnson’s failure to adequately warn of the formula’s potential risks for premature infants justified an award of more than $6.2 billion.
Throughout the five-week trial, the companies maintained that their preterm infant formulas are safe and have been widely endorsed by the medical community. In their statements following the verdict, Abbott and Mead Johnson pointed to the support of regulatory bodies and healthcare experts, reiterating that preterm formulas are an essential nutritional option for infants. “This decision supports what we and the medical community have long asserted: that preterm infant nutrition products are safe,” Abbott said. Mead Johnson echoed this sentiment, calling the verdict a validation that the claims lacked scientific backing.
The case is just one of approximately 1,000 similar lawsuits across the U.S., many of which focus on the alleged link between preterm formulas and NEC. With the high financial stakes of such cases, Abbott’s CEO Robert Ford recently noted that ongoing liability risks could threaten the market presence of such formulas, potentially impacting healthcare providers’ choices for premature infant care. Similarly, Reckitt has stated it is exploring various options for Mead Johnson, which may include a potential sale.
Although mother’s and donated human milk are recognized for their protective effects against NEC, both Abbott and Mead Johnson argue that formula does not cause the condition. They contend that the benefits of human milk are well-known and consistently integrated into neonatal care. The companies highlighted that previous verdicts—such as $60 million against Mead Johnson and $495 million against Abbott—are based on limited evidence and that regulatory reviews have not substantiated a causal link between formula and NEC. However, in this trial, the companies were not permitted to present recent supportive statements from regulatory agencies and scientists.
As similar cases continue to unfold nationwide, the outcome of this case may set a precedent for how courts weigh scientific evidence and regulatory perspectives in such complex healthcare product liability lawsuits.
Read more: