In a landmark case, Abbott Laboratories has been ordered to pay $495 million after a jury determined that their specialized infant formula contributed to a severe condition in a premature infant. The Missouri state court jury found that the formula caused the infant, Robynn Davis, to develop necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a dangerous bowel disease.
Margo Gill, the plaintiff and mother of Robynn, argued that Abbott failed to adequately warn of the risks associated with their product. The jury awarded $95 million in compensatory damages and an additional $400 million in punitive damages, despite the verdict not being unanimous—a requirement in Missouri civil cases where only three-fourths of jurors need to agree.
Abbott’s defense hinged on the argument that specialized formulas, such as those in question, are often necessary and life-saving for premature infants. They contended that Robynn’s injuries were due to birth trauma rather than the formula itself. Despite the verdict, Abbott expressed strong disagreement and indicated plans to seek an appeal.
This case is one of many, with nearly 1,000 lawsuits filed against Abbott and other formula makers like Reckitt Benckiser. These lawsuits generally claim that the companies failed to warn of the increased risk of NEC in infants fed cow’s milk-based formulas compared to those fed human milk or donor milk.
The ongoing litigation has stirred concern among investors, particularly affecting Reckitt Benckiser’s stock after a previous $60 million verdict. Meanwhile, Abbott is also entangled in separate lawsuits over a nationwide formula shortage following a plant shutdown in Michigan, though no trials have occurred in those cases yet.
As these cases progress, the debate over the safety and labeling of infant formulas continues, with significant implications for healthcare practices and corporate accountability.
