The makers of Similac and Enfamil have secured a major win in the ongoing litigation over claims that their cow’s milk-based premature baby formula products are linked to a serious intestinal disease.
A St. Louis state court jury sided with Abbott and Mead Johnson on Thursday afternoon, bringing an end to a month-long trial that had been closely watched due to its implications for the hundreds of active baby formula lawsuits.
According to Reuters, the case had been brought by Elizabeth Whitfield, who claimed that Abbott and Mead Johnson failed to warn about the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) when their formulas are fed to premature infants. NEC is a serious intestinal disease that can lead to infections and even death.
Whitfield’s son, Kaine, was born prematurely and survived NEC but was left with lifelong health issues as a result.
But the jury did not find those claims convincing, determining that neither company was liable for any of the claims that had been brought by Whitfield.
What the Latest Baby Formula Verdict Means for Future Lawsuits
This is a potentially major setback for the hundreds of similar lawsuits claiming that baby formula manufacturers failed to warn about the risks of NEC.
At the start of November, there were more than 600 baby formula lawsuits pending in multidistrict litigation.
Going into this case, things were looking positive for plaintiffs. Two previous baby formula cases to go to trial this year had signaled strong potential for future litigation after plaintiffs secured major wins.
In March, an Illinois jury awarded a $60 million verdict to the mother of a premature infant who had died from NEC after being fed Enfamil formula.
Then, just a few months later in July, a St. Louis jury ordered Similac manufacturer Abbott to pay a staggering $495 million to the family of an infant that developed NEC.
But this week’s verdict, which named both Abbott and Mead Johnson as defendants, paints a different picture for future cases.
Both companies maintain that their formulas do not cause NEC. In this trial, the defendants pointed to other existing health concerns that could have led to the infant’s intestinal disease.
Law.com reported that the baby formula companies also leaned on the minimal use of their products, with Mead Johnson’s representative stating in closing arguments that the infant in question received a single feed of the company’s formula.
Unlike in the previous two baby formula trials, the jury connected with these arguments and found them convincing enough to clear both companies of wrongdoing.
Another win for plaintiffs may have set a clear path to success for pending baby formula lawsuits. But with both main defendants earning a win, the future of that litigation could be much murkier.