A federal court ruled in favor of Abbott Laboratories, dismissing a second lawsuit related to the safety of its formula for premature infants. This decision could significantly affect over 1,400 similar cases pending against Abbott and its competitor, Mead Johnson. The lawsuit was brought by Keosha Diggs, a Maryland mother who claimed her son developed a severe intestinal condition called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after consuming Abbott’s specialized cow’s milk formula.
The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer on March 8, 2024. It came shortly before a trial that was set to take place in Chicago, which would have been the first in federal court addressing whether Abbott’s formula contributes to NEC among preterm infants. Judge Pallmeyer’s opinion stated that the expert testimony supporting Diggs’ claims was not applicable to her case, as it pertained to infants who were born earlier and weighed less than her son.
The dismissal is notable as it was classified as a bellwether case, intended to provide insight into how other similar lawsuits might be resolved. Abbott has faced a wave of litigation over its products, with cases consolidated in federal court. The judge’s decision to dismiss this case echoes an earlier ruling where another bellwether case was also thrown out.
In her remarks, Judge Pallmeyer noted that the deficiencies in Diggs’ case mirrored issues identified in the previous case, suggesting these problems may arise in future lawsuits. Legal analysts from Wells Fargo commented that these rulings indicate significant challenges for plaintiffs in proving their cases against Abbott and Mead Johnson.
In a statement following the verdict, attorney James Hurst, representing Abbott, expressed appreciation for the court’s careful consideration of the matter. He reiterated the company’s stance that the lawsuits contradict existing scientific evidence and legal standards.
Diggs’ lawsuit alleged that Abbott failed to adequately warn parents and healthcare providers about the risks associated with NEC in preterm infants using their formulas. The judge’s decision to exclude the expert testimony was pivotal, as it undermined the connection between the formula and the alleged health issues.
The ongoing litigation surrounding baby formulas is complex. While research indicates that formula feeding is linked with higher rates of NEC among preterm infants, it does not definitively establish causation. In a joint statement released last year, federal agencies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) asserted that there is no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC.
Despite the legal challenges, many medical professionals emphasize the importance of these formulas as critical sources of nutrition for vulnerable infants. Concerns have been raised that ongoing lawsuits could lead Abbott to withdraw these essential products from the market.
Historically, the outcomes of related lawsuits have varied. In state courts, one case resulted in a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson, while another awarded Abbott $495 million, a decision the company is currently appealing. A third case initially found the companies not liable, but a St. Louis judge later ordered a new trial due to errors in the original proceedings.
As Abbott continues to navigate these legal waters, the implications for the company and the families involved remain significant, with the potential for further developments in the ongoing litigation.
