Preterm Infant Formula Litigation Update
Two preterm formula cases have been tried against manufacturers. The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that preterm infant formula is both routine and necessary in the care of preterm infants. However, last year, there was a major victory in Gill v. Abbott Laboratories, a preterm infant formula case, and hundreds of cases continue. If your baby was injured or died as a result of NEC that you believe was caused by preterm infant formula, call the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases around the country with which we’ve been involved.
Call Moll Law Group About Your Preterm Infant Formula Claim
In Gill v. Abbott Laboratories, the plaintiff sued Abbott Laboratories on behalf of her preterm infant, claiming that the company’s cow’s milk-based preterm infant formula caused the infant’s necrotizing enterocolitis (“NEC”), an intestinal disease that often affects preterm infants. The science can be a little difficult to understand since the studies say that preterm infants exclusively fed the cow’s milk-based formula are at a higher risk of developing NEC than those fed only human milk, but studies have not firmly concluded that there is a direct causal link between NEC and cow’s milk-based formula.
During Gill v. Abbott Laboratories’ pre-trial motions and pleadings, the manufacturer defended itself under the learned intermediary doctrine, an affirmative defense. This is a doctrine that applies in some states to remove responsibility from manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices of the duty to provide direct warnings to patients or consumers of the risks associated with those drugs and medical devices, so long as the manufacturer gives appropriate information to the physician prescribing the medication or device. The physician then bears the responsibility of letting patients know what the pros and cons are, and what would be the most prudent course of treatment. In Gill, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and asked the court to determine that the manufacturer wasn’t entitled to use the learned intermediary doctrine and other similar affirmative defenses.