FOLLOW US

Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Evidence and Arguments

The court also criticized the plaintiffs’ reliance on Abbott’s internal documents, which discussed potential acquisitions involving Prolacta. Pallmeyer clarified that these referred to fortifiers, not formulas, and reflected Abbott’s recognition that breast milk is preferred — not evidence of wrongdoing.

Ultimately, she concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the product’s risks outweigh its benefits, emphasizing that Similac Special Care remains an essential backup for infants with no feeding alternatives.

Abbott Applauds Ruling; Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Silent

In a statement Friday, an Abbott spokesperson welcomed the court’s “thoughtful consideration” of scientific evidence, reaffirming that the company’s products are “safe and vital to the care of premature infants.”

Attorneys for Brown and Etienne, represented by Irpino Avin & Hawkins, were not immediately available for comment.

Other plaintiffs in the MDL are represented by Johnson Becker PLLC, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, DiCello Levitt LLP, and Levin Rojas Camassar & Reck LLC, with Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise serving on the plaintiffs’ executive committee.

Abbott is represented by powerhouse firms Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP.

The Broader Picture

This marks Abbott’s third victory in the first four bellwether trials of the MDL — a strong indication of the defense’s momentum as hundreds of similar claims remain pending.

With science, scale, and practicality on its side, Abbott’s courtroom streak underscores a harsh reality: in the delicate balance between risk and necessity, sometimes even imperfect solutions are indispensable.