Abbott’s conduct significantly reprehensible with regard to Similac Manufacturing Issues

Having worked in the healthcare field manufacturing products, extraordinary care has to be taken so as to avoid just as happened in the manufacture of Similac.

“Missouri Appeals court upholds $495M ruling against Abbott in baby formula case,” Seeking Alpha

Abbott is still on the hook for $95M in compensatory damages and $400M in punitive damages following a ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in a case involving the company’s Similac infant formula.

Plaintiff Margo Gill alleged that her infant daughter was given Similac while in a hospital neonatal intensive care unit and developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) from it. The child has been suffering from irreversible neurological damage and permanent disabilities, necessitating medical care for the rest of her life.

A St. Louis state court jury found in favor of Gill in July 2024.

“The jury heard evidence that Infant’s doctors would have altered her treatment if warned about the NEC risk,” the appellate court’s ruling reads. “Next, Gill testified that she would have intervened if she received a warning. Last, Abbott had ample opportunity to warn Gill through its multiple marketing efforts and social media outreach.”

Abbott, along with Reckitt Benckiser (RBGPF)(RBGLY) division, are facing a mountain of lawsuits from individuals alleging their infant children were sickened from the companies’ baby formulas. The suits argue that because the formulas were made with milk from cows with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the companies knew or should have known of the risks in using such milk in their products.

Infants exposed to BSE are at a higher risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis, which is characterized by significant intestinal inflammation that can lead to intestinal tissue death and tears in the gut wall, meaning bowel contents enter the abdomen.

In the Gill case, Abbott argued that the infant’s injuries were caused by birth trauma and oxygen deprivation during delivery.

The appellate court ruling also addressed the large damages in the case but also scolded Abbott at the same time. “Arguably, this is a significant, substantial award and Abbott’s due process concern gives us pause. While we recognize an excessive award fails to serve a legitimate purpose and unjustly deprives property, we are equally cognizant that the purpose of punitive damages is to deter egregious conduct.

“Applying these factors, we find Abbott’s conduct significantly reprehensible. Ingham, 608 S.W.3d at 721 (finding ‘there was significant reprehensibility’ in the defendant company’s conduct due to physical harm to patients, the defendant’s knowledge of the danger, defendant’s attempts to discredit studies unfavorable to their products and a conscious choice not to remove the dangerous element from the product because of the cost). Here, the jury found Abbott’s preterm formula caused substantial, extensive, permanent physical harm to Infant who will require comprehensive daily care for the remainder of her lifetime.

“Further, Abbott specifically designed its preterm formula for the population exposed to the most risk and yet failed to mitigate any danger by warning the consumer or actively changing the ingredient profile. Lastly, the product is still in the market without a NEC warning.”