ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI – A judge has granted Simon Law’s motion for a new trial against the makers of cow’s-milk based baby formula, which has been shown to increase the risk of a deadly intestinal disease in premature babies.
Simon Law represents a 7-year-old boy who contracted necrotizing enterocolitis or NEC as a preterm infant after being fed formula made by Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson. The disease left him with short bowel syndrome and a multitude of other lifelong health complications.
“The Court’s decision to grant our client a new trial helps preserve the integrity of the judicial process for clients like ours,” said Simon Law lead attorney Tim Cronin. “All we ask is that our client be given a fair trial and that jurors are influenced only by the evidence the Court deems appropriate.”
The trial took place during five weeks, and Simon Law attorneys tried the case alongside attorneys from Keller Postman LLC and Cates Law. About half-way through trial, Judge Michael Noble sanctioned Abbott’s lead attorney on the case after repeated violations of the Court’s orders regarding inadmissible evidence.
It ended in a verdict in favor of the defendants.
In its motion for a new trial, Simon Law argued formula manufacturers Abbott and Mead Johnson used a common football strategy called “flooding the zone,” to overwhelm and barrage the court with objectionable conduct and evidence in a veiled attempt to cause a mistrial and/or improperly prejudice the jury against the plaintiff.
The Court agreed.
“The Court finds the cumulative effect of the errors resulted in not only prejudice and denied plaintiff a fair trial, but also resulted in a manifest injustice which is so egregious that those errors weakened the foundation of the judicial process and seriously undermined the confidence in the outcome of this trial,” Judge Noble wrote. “The jury’s verdict was the result of passion, bias and prejudice which vitiates the entire verdict.
In his order granting Simon Law’s motion for a new trial, Noble also noted there were more than 90 side bars and daily oral arguments heard before trial testimony started and during breaks in testimony.
Judge Noble called the “onslaught of daily written and oral motions to reconsider nearly every interlocutory or trial ruling” a “litigation strategy” that “skirts the borders of the honorable boundaries of Missouri’s Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Even though the Court only sanctioned Abbott’s attorney, it also noted, “Mead exacerbated Abbott’s errors and misconduct by mirroring the same language throughout their presentation of evidence and arguments.”
The order continued: “Defendants injected the erroneous defense asking the jury to consider that plaintiff and/or his counsel are asking for all formula or all pre-term infant formula to be banned from the market, and the result of that request is that infants would starve to death. This Court finds it was an error to allow such arguments, questions or evidence as it confused and mislead the jury to the point of nullification of plaintiff’s claims for his damages. Additionally, said defense was in direct conflict of evidence that St. Louis Children’s Hospital had changed its feeding protocol was proof that no pre-term infant under 1,500 grams would starve in the absence of pre-term infant formula or that pre-term infant formula had to be removed from the market.”
The Court also noted how attorneys for formula manufacturers “erroneously introduced evidence” that the FDA approved each ingredient of the pre-term infant formula at issue and “intentionally and flagrantly” disregarded the Court’s repeated orders by referencing the consensus statement several times and reading it into evidence.
“Despite the Court’s warnings and clear instructions, defendants intentionally violated the court’s orders and rulings by improperly introducing the inadmissible evidence to the jury time after time,” the Judge wrote.
Media Contact:
Christine Byers
Simon Law Director of Marketing & Communications
cbyers@simonlawpc.com
