NEC Litigation Update: Missouri Appellate Court Upholds $495 Million Abbott Verdict
A Missouri appellate court has upheld a $495 million verdict against Abbott Laboratories in a major necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC, baby formula case. The decision affirms the 2024 Gill verdict, where a jury found that Abbott’s cow’s milk-based premature infant formula, Similac Special Care 24, contributed to a premature infant developing NEC. The award includes $95 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages.
The ruling marks a significant development in ongoing litigation involving cow’s milk-based formulas used for premature infants in neonatal intensive care units. Plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that manufacturers failed to adequately warn parents and medical providers about the risk of NEC, a severe gastrointestinal disease that can cause intestinal damage, long-term complications, or death in premature infants.
Recent NEC Litigation Developments
In April 2026, a Cook County, Illinois jury awarded $70 million to four families in a separate case against Abbott. The verdict included $53 million in compensatory damages and $17 million in punitive damages after jurors found that Abbott’s cow’s milk-based formula contributed to the infants developing NEC.
Abbott continues to deny that its products cause NEC and has maintained that specialized formulas are important nutritional options when mother’s milk or donor milk is unavailable. The company has also indicated it intends to appeal adverse verdicts.
The litigation remains active nationwide, with lawsuits pending in state courts and federal multidistrict litigation. Reuters has reported that the broader litigation involves nearly 1,000 lawsuits against Abbott and Mead Johnson/Reckitt, while some plaintiff-side litigation trackers report higher totals as filings continue.
Why This Matters for Law Firms
These verdicts underscore the operational complexity of NEC litigation. Law firms handling these cases may need to manage detailed claimant intake, medical record collection, NICU feeding histories, product identification, expert review, causation analysis, and damages documentation.
As NEC litigation continues through 2026, firms will need strong case management infrastructure, accurate data capture, medical record coordination, and defensible workflows to support claimant development and trial readiness.
Call to Action
As NEC cases continue to move through courts nationwide, law firms need the right litigation support to manage claimant data, medical records, case development, and reporting with consistency and accuracy.
Verus helps law firms manage complex litigation with scalable case management, medical review, data analytics, and operational support designed for high-volume, high stakes matters.
State Jury Finds for Plaintiffs in NEC Baby Formula Case
5/7/2026
On April 9, 2026, after ten hours of deliberation, an Illinois jury awarded $53 million in compensatory damages to four mothers whose preterm infants were injured by baby formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. The infants had been diagnosed with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). a severe gastrointestinal illness, after being fed Abbott’s cow’s milk-based Similac Special Care 24 baby formula at hospitals in the Chicago area. The plaintiffs alleged that Abbott had concealed evidence from regulators and the public that the formula could cause NEC, resulting in long-term damage to the babies, including surgery in the initial weeks after they were born. The presiding judge, Judge John Ehrlich, acknowledged that Abbott was aware of the risks but failed to warn consumers stating “Abbott knows there was a substantial risk for NEC that comes with feeding SSC to preemies, therefore a warning should be placed on the label or packaging or both.” In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that Abbott was negligent and the product defective.
Judge Ehrlich also determined that there was evidence that Abbott was guilty of willful and wanton conduct, which warranted that the question of punitive damages be put to the jury.
At trial, Abbott maintained that its formula is safe and that the infants developed NEC as a result of other factors, including premature birth and very low birthweights.
The day after the initial verdict, the jury awarded another $17 million in punitive damages to the plaintiffs, bringing the total to $70 million. In response, Abbott indicated that it “respectfully but strongly” disagreed with the verdict and would appeal.
This trial is the latest in a series of state court cases against Abbott and competitor Mead Johnson for their cow’s milk-cased products which have yielded mixed results in the last few years. In March 2024 Mead Johnson lost its first case and was hit with a $60 million verdict. In July 2024 a jury awarded $95 million and $400 million for bellwether claims that its formula caused NEC. Conversely, in 2024, a jury in St. Louis found Abbott and Mead Johnson not responsible for similar claims, a verdict that was later vacated by the judge.
Results in the federal court MDL have yielded different results. In October 2025 a jury gave Abbott its third bellwether win, finding that developing an alternative to human milk on the large scale necessary was not feasible.
Defense Deception Exposed: Missouri Judge Overturns Formula Makers’ Lone NEC Trial Win
5/15/2025
A Missouri judge on March 15,2025, has just erased the only courtroom victory Abbott and Mead Johnson had in the NEC baby formula litigation, ruling that their defense was built on intentional misconduct. This decision is a major win for plaintiffs and reinforces what past verdicts have already shown—NEC cases pose a serious and costly liability for these formula manufacturers.
Why Was the Verdict Overturned?
Judge Noble’s ruling came after finding that Abbott and Mead Johnson repeatedly violated court orders in an effort to mislead jurors. The defense’s misconduct included:
- Introducing inadmissible evidence to sway the jury unfairly.
- Falsely claiming the plaintiff wanted all formula banned, playing on fear-based biases.
- Using improper expert testimony and FDA arguments that had already been ruled inadmissible.
- Exploiting the mother’s marijuana use without any scientific basis linking it to NEC.
These violations were so egregious that Abbott’s lead attorney was previously sanctioned and even barred from delivering closing arguments in the case—a rare and serious reprimand.
What Does This Mean for NEC Lawsuits?
This ruling doesn’t just erase the formula makers’ lone win—it signals that courts will not tolerate deceptive tactics in NEC litigation. Abbott and Mead Johnson are expected to appeal, but with prior NEC verdicts totaling nearly $500 million, they are quickly running out of legal maneuvering room.
For plaintiffs, this ruling is another step toward holding these companies accountable. The pressure is mounting for them to stop dodging responsibility and start warning parents about the real risks of NEC.
As more NEC cases move through the courts, one thing is clear: deceptive defense strategies won’t stand up to scrutiny, and the momentum remains firmly on the side of the plaintiffs.
February 14, 2022
New infant formula litigation has been developing over the last year involving two well-known formula products: Mead Johnson’s Enfamil and Abbott Laboratories’ Similac. The two cow milk-based infant formulas have been linked to the development of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants. This possibly fatal side effect has been known for a number of years; an article published as early as 1990 in the British medical journal, The Lancet, notes that NEC was more common in preterm infants who were fed formula as opposed to only breast milk or a mix of formula and breast milk.
NEC is an acute gastrointestinal condition in which harmful bacteria accumulates in an infant’s intestines causing inflammation, rupture, possible sepsis and tissue decay; it can occur in 1 out of every 1000 live births and is fatal in 15-40% of the cases. Because many babies who are born preterm cannot breastfeed, they are given formula to assist with their growth and development; this formula is typically made with cow milk and can lead to NEC. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development estimates that NEC affects about 9,000 of the 480,000 infants born preterm each year in the United States; injuries can range from intestinal strictures that limit the baby’s ability to process food to tissue death, sepsis and even death.
The infant formula lawsuits filed to date present a number of causes of action including design defect, negligence, breach of warranty and failure to warn. There are cases currently filed in Illinois state courts as well as a number of federal courts, including the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of Illinois, and District Courts in the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Missouri, and California. One issue likely to be raised will be the reliance by the defendant manufacturers on the provisions of the Infant Formula Act, passed by the FDA in 1980, which set forth the requirements for infant formula.
On January 18, Abbott filed a Motion to Transfer seventeen cases to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Reponses to Abbott’s Motion were due on 2/9/2022.
Consolidation of the cases being filed into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) will likely be considered at the upcoming meeting of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on March 31, 2022 with a decision expected in mid to late April.
In addition to the cases filed in federal courts around the country, more than 30 lawsuits are currently filed in state court in Illinois and on December 14, 2021, plaintiffs’ firms Keller Lenkner and The Holland Firm filed a motion with the Supreme Court of Illinois to consolidate those cases into a single action in Madison County. If granted, the cases would be consolidated for pretrial and discovery proceedings and centralized in Madison County Circuit Court. Defendants Mead and Abbott were granted an extension of time within which to respond to the motion.
Although Illinois may be the focus for any consolidation, given the longstanding ties the two defendant manufacturers have to the state, Mead Johnson has taken the position that their principal place of business is Indiana.
