Food & Beverage News: Insights, Safety, and Dining Trends
- Abbott Laboratories paid about $670 million to resolve litigation including the Gill family case.
- Gill family won nearly $500 million in 2024, alleging brain damage from necrotizing enterocolitis linked to Similac Special Care 24.
- Abbott says settlements are compromises, not admissions of liability, and defends product safety for pre-term infants.
- Roughly 1,700 lawsuits involving about 12,700 infants remain; Abbott says many claims are duplicates, unclear, or predate formula exposure.
Abbott Laboratories has settled around 2,000 legal cases with parents who claimed their babies suffered an intestinal disease from its infant formula.
The US-based company said it has paid about $670m as part of the litigation agreements reached, including with the Gill family, who in 2024 were awarded almost $500m in a brain damage case related to necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Despite Abbott appealing the award to the Gill family before the Missouri Court of Appeals in December 2024, the company lost the petition and has now decided to settle to avoid any further costs.
“Rather than continuing to appeal or paying approximately $600m, representing the Gill judgment plus accrued interest to date, Abbott entered into agreements to resolve the Gill case as well as NEC claims asserted on behalf of approximately 2,000 additional infants for an aggregate amount of approximately $670m,” the company said in a statement.
When the case was brought in 2024, the Gill family claimed their child – Robynn Gill – “suffered severe, irreversible brain damage” from consuming Abbott’s Similac Special Care 24 formula for premature babies.
Lawyers for the family had argued Abbott had “known for years that its cow’s milk-based formula significantly increases the risk” of NEC, with the company accused of negligence for not displaying warnings on labels.
Abbott had contested the family claims, which spread to other parents and also engulfed infant-formula peer Reckitt Benckiser and its Mead Johnson brand, Enfamil Premature 24.
In its statement issued yesterday (20 August), Abbott said: “These agreements are a compromise of disputed claims and not in any way an admission of liability. Abbott stands by the safety of these products and the essential role they play in helping the medical community care for pre-term infants.”
In June, the Appellate Court of Illinois Fifth District reversed a decision against Mead Johnson that had awarded $60m in damages to Jasmine Watson, the mother of Chance Dean, who it was claimed died from NEC after consuming Enfamil Premature 24.
Abbott made reference to that case in yesterday’s statement, saying the initial verdict against Mead Johnson “failed to properly apply the learned intermediary doctrine governing a manufacturer’s duty to warn, a defence relevant in a substantial number of cases”.
It went on to say that “there are roughly 1,700 lawsuits pending in federal and state courts involving claims on behalf of approximately 12,700 individual infants”.
Abbott added: “That population includes claims on behalf of individuals who named both Abbott and Mead Johnson without identifying which manufacturer’s formula was administered, individuals diagnosed with NEC before receiving any formula, individuals who were never diagnosed with NEC, and individuals who appear in multiple lawsuits in different jurisdictions.
“Abbott continues to work to identify and eliminate such claims and others like them.”
Last October, Abbott won a legal case – the fourth – in the northern district of Illinois eastern division that had claimed its Similac formula caused the death of a baby from NEC.
Plaintiffs alleged the infant started to be fed Similac Special Care 24 (SSC-24) in September 2021 but the infant then died a “few days” later from NEC.
In defending its corner, Abbott said yesterday: “While Abbott remains confident in the safety of these products and the science supporting them, the company believes these agreements are in its best long-term interest and represent a constructive step toward substantially resolving the overall litigation.”
Sign up for our daily news round-up!
Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.
Read the full article from the original source
