If you are a parent of a premature infant who developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after being fed cow’s-milk-based formula in a NICU, you may have come across two different lawsuit tracks: one against Abbott Laboratories (the maker of Similac) and one against Mead Johnson (the maker of Enfamil).
The two tracks share the same scientific foundation, but they have moved through the courts at different speeds and produced different headline outcomes. Here is a plain-English read on how they compare — and what it means for families weighing whether to file.
The Same Core Allegation
Both Similac and Enfamil are sold in cow’s-milk-based versions specifically marketed for use in NICUs. Both have been linked in published medical research to a significantly elevated risk of NEC in premature infants compared with breast milk or donor human milk.
Both lawsuit tracks rest on essentially the same product-liability theory: that the manufacturer knew or should have known of the elevated NEC risk and failed to adequately warn families and NICU clinicians. The medical-record investigation looks essentially identical for both tracks. The legal theory looks essentially identical too. The practical difference is which manufacturer is the defendant and which forum the case ends up in.
Two Different Manufacturers, Two Different Histories
Abbott Laboratories, the maker of Similac, is one of the largest medical-products companies in the country, with a long history in infant nutrition. Mead Johnson, the maker of Enfamil, has been owned by Reckitt Benckiser since 2017 and is also a global infant-formula brand. Both companies have publicly defended their products and pointed to FDA labeling and clinician-driven NICU feeding decisions.
Both have also faced sustained scrutiny in the medical literature on the NEC risk associated with cow’s-milk-based premature formulas, and both are named defendants in the consolidated federal multidistrict litigation in Illinois (MDL No. 3026) and in state-court cases across multiple jurisdictions.
Where the Major Verdicts Have Come From
The largest publicly reported NEC verdicts to date have been entered in state-court trials, not federal MDL proceedings. Missouri and Illinois state juries have each entered nine-figure verdicts against the manufacturers in specific concluded cases on the public record. See our verdict history page for a plain-English summary of those decisions, with the standard disclaimer that public-record verdicts are news facts about specific cases — they do not predict any individual case’s outcome.
The federal MDL has moved on a separate track, with bellwether trials scheduled into 2027. The bellwether outcomes will help both sides understand how federal juries view the evidence, which often informs later settlement negotiations.
What Plaintiffs Need to Show
For both Similac and Enfamil cases, plaintiffs typically need to establish four foundational facts:
The infant was premature or at low birth weight
The infant was fed the manufacturer’s cow’s-milk-based formula in the NICU
The infant developed NEC during or shortly after that feeding
The NEC caused serious harm — surgery, short bowel syndrome, sepsis, or death
The medical-record review tells the story. NICU records show what was fed, on what schedule, and what happened next. If you are not sure which formula your child was fed, those records will show it.
Hospital Negligence Often Sits Alongside Both Tracks
In many NEC cases, the formula is one cause of harm — but not the only one. NICU staff failures (delayed diagnosis, improper feeding ramp-up protocols, missed warning signs) often contribute to the severity of NEC outcomes. Strong cases investigate every potential cause and pursue every responsible party — manufacturer claims and hospital negligence claims — in parallel.
That dual track is one of the reasons the firm pairs trial-lawyer expertise with a Medical-Legal Consultant who holds both an M.D. and a J.D. — reading NICU records the way a pediatric clinician would, then translating that into the legal record.
What This Means If You’re Considering a Case
If your child was fed Similac specifically, the case track is well established with a long line of state-court decisions to draw on. If your child was fed Enfamil specifically, the case track is similarly established, with both state-court verdicts and active federal MDL participation. Many NICUs use both products. The medical-record review tells the story.
Either way, the path starts the same: a free, confidential case review where we pull and review the NICU records and identify which manufacturer claim — and which hospital negligence claim, if any — fits your family’s situation. Statutes of limitations vary by state and run on case-specific timelines. The window does not stay open forever. If you are weighing whether to file, the cost of asking is fifteen minutes.
Free, Confidential NEC Case Review
We pull the NICU records and walk you through what they show — for both the Similac and Enfamil tracks, and any hospital negligence questions sitting alongside.
No Fees Unless We Recover Money for You. Free, confidential consultation.
Sources
- Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation — In re: Abbott Laboratories, et al., Preterm Infant Nutrition Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3026 (N.D. Ill.). jpml.uscourts.gov
- U.S. Food & Drug Administration — "FDA Statement on Premature Infant Formula and NEC." fda.gov
- American Academy of Pediatrics — "Donor Human Milk for the High-Risk Infant: Preparation, Safety, and Usage Options." Pediatrics, 2017. publications.aap.org
- Quigley M, Embleton ND, McGuire W. "Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants." Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019. cochrane.org
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — NICU Surveillance Reports. cdc.gov