Missouri Judge Overturns Victory For Formula Makers After Alleged Courtroom Misconduct
A Missouri judge reversed a previous ruling in favor of Abbott Laboratories and Reckitt Benckiser’s Mead Johnson unit on March 13, 2025, ordering a new trial over claims their premature infant formulas caused a young boy’s debilitating intestinal disease. Circuit Judge Michael Noble ruled that defense attorneys engaged in “appalling” misconduct that prevented a fair trial. The unexpected decision sent both companies’ stock prices falling and reignited concerns about approximately 1,000 similar lawsuits nationwide alleging the specialized formulas cause necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants. Both companies announced plans to appeal the ruling.
5 Key Points
- Judge Michael Noble ordered a new trial on March 13, citing defense attorney misconduct during the proceedings
- The case involves allegations that specialized baby formulas caused necrotizing enterocolitis in plaintiff Kaine Whitfield
- The ruling reverses a previous jury verdict that had favored Abbott and Reckitt Benckiser
- Both companies’ stock prices fell nearly 3% following the announcement
- Defense attorneys were accused of violating court instructions and confusing jurors with disallowed evidence
How Did Defense Attorneys’ “Appalling” Misconduct Derail The Original Formula Trial?
Missouri Circuit Judge Michael Noble’s March 13 ruling outlined specific misconduct by defense attorneys representing Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson. According to court documents, lawyers for the formula manufacturers “intentionally and repeatedly violated clear instructions when presenting evidence to the jury.” Noble described how defense attorneys “flooded the zone” with objections throughout the five-week trial and presented evidence that the judge had previously disallowed.
The ruling further states that defense attorneys confused jurors by attacking “straw man” arguments and making inflammatory claims that babies would “starve to death” if the specialized formulas were removed from the market. The misconduct was deemed serious enough that one of Abbott’s lawyers received sanctions during the trial proceedings. This attorney was subsequently barred from presenting evidence or making arguments during the latter half of the five-week trial.
Tim Cronin, the attorney representing plaintiff Kaine Whitfield and his mother, expressed strong support for the judge’s decision. “The misconduct in this case was appalling, and we certainly felt it led to an unfair trial and unjust result for our client,” Cronin stated following the announcement of a new trial. The plaintiff’s legal team had previously asked jurors to award more than $6.2 billion in damages during the original trial.
The reversal represents a significant setback for Abbott and Reckitt after initially securing a favorable verdict in the closely watched case.
Why Are Abbott And Reckitt Pushing Back Against The $6.2 Billion Formula Lawsuit Decision?
Both Abbott Laboratories and Reckitt Benckiser immediately announced plans to appeal Judge Noble’s decision. Abbott spokesperson Scott Stoffel defended the original verdict, stating that the jury had reached the correct decision based on scientific evidence and input from government regulators who have not established a definitive link between premature infant formula and necrotizing enterocolitis.
“We are disappointed by the court’s extraordinary decision to set aside the jury’s work,” Stoffel said in a statement released after the ruling. His comments emphasized the company’s position that scientific evidence does not support the allegations against their products.
Reckitt Benckiser issued an even stronger rebuke of the court’s decision on March 14. “This decision is at complete odds with the law and the facts, and we will appeal,” the company stated. The forceful response underscores both manufacturers’ significant financial and reputational stakes.
Financial markets reacted quickly to the news, with Reckitt shares dropping 2.8% and Abbott stock falling 2.9% by 1440 GMT on Friday. The immediate market response reflects investor concerns about both companies’ potential liability, with approximately 1,000 similar lawsuits pending nationwide.
What Is Necrotizing Enterocolitis, And Why Are Formula Manufacturers Being Held Liable?
This lawsuit centers on necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a devastating intestinal disease that primarily affects premature infants. According to medical data cited in the case, NEC has an estimated mortality rate exceeding 20% among affected babies. The condition can cause portions of the bowel to die, potentially requiring surgery and leading to lifelong complications for survivors.
Kaine Whitfield’s lawsuit alleges that Abbott and Mead Johnson failed to adequately warn about risks associated with their specialized formulas, which are commonly used in neonatal intensive care units. These specialized nutritional products are specifically designed for premature infants who may not receive sufficient breast milk. The litigation claims that cow’s milk-based formulas can increase the risk of NEC in vulnerable premature babies.
The legal dispute has raised significant concerns within the medical community. Doctors have expressed alarm that the litigation could threaten the availability of specialized formulas or influence medical decisions in neonatal care. This creates tension between ensuring product safety through appropriate warnings and maintaining access to nutritional products for vulnerable infants.
The case represents part of a broader legal challenge to formula manufacturers, with approximately 1,000 similar lawsuits filed throughout the country alleging comparable failures to warn about NEC risks.
How Will The St. Louis Retrial Impact The 1,000 Similar Formula Lawsuits Nationwide?
The overturned verdict and ordered retrial could significantly impact the trajectory of roughly 1,000 similar lawsuits against infant formula manufacturers nationwide. Before this reversal, the St. Louis verdict had represented a crucial victory for Abbott and Reckitt following earlier trial losses that concerned investors.
Judge Noble’s decision to order a new trial strengthens plaintiffs’ positions in other cases by suggesting that manufacturer defense tactics may face increased court scrutiny. The ruling could embolden other plaintiffs’ attorneys to pursue similar litigation strategies, potentially increasing settlement pressure on the companies.
The court’s finding of misconduct by defense attorneys may also influence how formula manufacturers approach future trials. Companies may need to reconsider defense strategies that could be perceived as aggressive or potentially misleading to jurors, especially regarding scientific evidence and risk disclosures.
Healthcare providers have expressed concern about the broader implications of these cases. Medical organizations worry that litigation could affect the availability of specialized nutrition products for premature infants or change how doctors approach feeding decisions in neonatal intensive care units. This highlights the delicate balance between product safety litigation and ensuring access to necessary medical nutrition products.
On this page:
