Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #9
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page1of19 Page ID #9
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #10
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2of19 Page ID #10
`
`Electronically Filed
`Marie Zaiz
`Circuit Clerk
`Jennifer Daviin
`21L1216
`St. Clair County
`12/15/2021 11:06 AM
`15962975
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
`OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`ST. CLAIR COUNTY,ILLINOIS
`
`21L1216
`
`Case No:
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`RANDI MONZON,individually and on
`behalf of MINOR ANGELI MONZON
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`VS.
`
`ABBOTT LABORATORIES,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffbrings this Complaint against Abbott Laboratories (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges
`
`the following:
`
`NATUREOFTHEACTION
`
`1,
`
`This action arises out of the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs premature infant, Angeli
`
`Monzon, (“Injured Infant”) who was given Defendant’s cow’s milk-based infant feeding products.
`
`Defendants’ products caused the Injured Infant to develop necrotizing enterocolitis (“NEC”),a life-
`
`altering and potentially deadly disease that largely affects premature babies who are given cow’s
`
`milk-based feeding products. As a result, the Injured Infant was seriously injured,resulting in long-
`
`term health effects and harm to the Injured Infant and her parent, Randi Monzon, (“Plaintiff
`
`Parent”).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff brings these causes of action against Defendant to recoverfor injuries that
`
`are the direct and proximate result of the Injured Infant’s consumption of Defendant’s
`
`unreasonably dangerous cow’s milk-based infant feeding products.
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #11
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3o0f19 Page ID #11
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Injured Infant Angeli Monzonis a natural person, minor, and resident of Memphis,
`
`Tennessee.
`
`Plaintiff Randi Monzonis a natural person and Angeli Monzon’s mother. Randi
`
`Monzonis a resident of Memphis, Tennessee.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) is a corporation, incorporated underthe
`
`laws of the State of Hlinois. Its principal place of business is 100 Abbott Park Road, Abbott Park,
`
`Illinois, 60064. Abbott is a manufacturerof cow’s milk-based infant feeding products and markets
`
`manyof its products under the “Similac”brand name.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6,
`
`This Court has general jurisdiction over this action because Abbot Laboratories
`
`maintains its principal place of business in Illinois and because Abbott Laboratories is
`
`incorporated in Illinois. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-209; see also Rios v. BayerCorp., 2020 IL
`
`125020, § 19 (June 4, 2020)(citing Daimler AG y. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014)).
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in St. Clair County because Defendants regularly conduct
`
`business there; Defendants distribute andsell their products in St. Clair County, including Similac
`
`brand formula. 735 ILCS 5/2-101; 735 ILCS 5/2-102(a).
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`Angeli Monzon was born prematurely at 32 gestational weeks with a low
`
`birthweight at Regional One Health in Memphis, Tennessee.
`
`9.
`
`Angeli Monzon wasfed Similac cow’s milk-based products starting frombirth.
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #12
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4of19 Page ID #12
`
`10.
`
`Shortly after she first ingested Defendant’s products, Angeli Monzon developed
`
`NEC.
`
`11.
`
`Angeli Monzon was forced to undergo several treatments and has continued to
`
`suffer long-term health effects.
`
`Cow’s Milk-Based Feeding Products Are Known to Cause NEC
`
`12.|NECis a devastating disease that is the most frequent and lethal gastrointestinal
`
`disorder affecting preterm infants. NEC develops when harmful bacteria breach the walls of the
`
`intestine, causing portions of the intestine to become inflamed and often to die. Once NEC
`
`develops, the condition can progress rapidly from mild feeding intolerance to systemic and fatal
`
`sepsis. Up to 30 percent of NEC-diagnosed infants die from the disease.
`
`13.
`
`Preterm and low-birth-weight infants are especially susceptible to NEC because of
`
`their underdeveloped digestive systems. Extensive scientific research,
`
`including numerous
`
`randomized controlled trials, has confirmed that cow’s milk-based feeding products cause NEC
`
`in preterm and low-birth-weight infants, which in turn may lead to other medical complications,
`
`surgeries, long-term health problems, and death.
`
`14.‘
`
`For example, in one randomized, multicenter study of 926 preterm infants, NEC
`
`was six to ten times more common in exclusively cow’s milk formula-fed babies than in
`
`exclusively breast milk-fed babies and three times more common in babies who received a
`
`combination of formula and breast milk. For babies born at more than 30 weeks gestation, NEC
`
`was 20 times more common in those only fed cow’s milk formula than in those fed breast milk.
`
`15.
`
`Another randomized controlled trial showed that preterm babies fed an exclusive
`
`breast milk-based diet were 90% less likely to develop surgical NEC (NEC that requires surgical
`
`treatment), compared to preterm babies fed a diet that included some cow’s milk-based products.
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #13
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page5of19 Page ID #13
`
`16.
`
`Yet another study that analyzed the data from a 12-center randomized trial
`
`concluded that fortification of breast milk with a cow’s milk-based fortifier resulted in a 4.2-fold
`
`increased risk of NEC and a 5.1-fold increased risk of surgical NEC or death, compared to
`
`fortification with a breast milk-based fortifier.
`
`17.
`
`A Surgeon General report, The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Support
`
`Breastfeeding, warns that, “for vulnerable premature infants, formula feeding is associated with
`
`higherrates of necrotizing enterocolitis.” The report also states that premature infants whoare not
`
`breastfed are 138% more likely to develop NEC.
`
`18.
`
`The American Academy of Pediatrics, “an organization of 67,000 pediatricians
`
`committed to the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants,
`
`children, adolescents, and young adults,” has advised that aff premature infants should be fed
`
`either their mother’s milk or, if their mother’s milk is unavailable, pasteurized human donor milk.
`
`This recommendation is based on the “potent benefits of human milk,” including “lowerrates of
`
`... NEC.”
`
`19,
`
`A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial found that premature and low-birth-
`
`weight infants fed an exclusive breast milk-based diet suffered NEC only 3% ofthe time while
`
`premature and low-birth-weight infants receiving cow’s milk-based formula suffered NEC 21%
`
`ofthe time.
`
`20.
`
`Another study conducted a randomized comparison of extremely preterm infants
`
`who were given either (a) a diet of breast milk fortified with a breast milk-based fortifier or (b) a
`
`diet containing variable amounts of cow’s milk-based products. The babies given exclusively
`
`breast milk products suffered NEC 5% of the time. The babies given cow’s milk products suffered
`
`NEC 17% ofthe time,
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #14
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6of19 Page ID #14
`
`Safer, Nutritionally Superior Alternatives to Cow’s Milk-Based Products Exist
`
`21.
`
`A range of optionsare available that allow preterm and low-birth-weight infants to
`
`be fed exclusively human milk-based nutrition. For example,in addition to the mother’s own milk,
`
`an established network delivers pasteurized donorbreast milk to hospitals nationwide. Moreover,
`
`hospitals have access to shelf-stable formula and milk fortifiers derived from pasteurized breast
`
`milk.
`
`22._A diet based exclusively on breast milk and breast milk fortifiers provides all the
`
`nutrition necessary to support premature and low-birth-weight infants without the elevated risk of
`
`NECassociated with cow’s milk-based products. For example, in a study analyzing preterm
`
`infants who were fed an exclusive breast milk-based diet until they reached 34 weeks, all 104
`
`infants exceeded standard growth targets and met length and head-circumference growth targets,
`
`demonstrating that infants can achieve and mostly exceed targeted growth standards when
`
`receiving an exclusive breast milk-based diet. This is particularly true given the ability of breast
`
`milk-based fortifiers to provide the additional nutritional supplements necessary for adequate
`
`growth while receiving the protective benefits of a breast milk diet.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant’s products not only posea threat to infants’ health, but also displace the
`
`breast milk they could otherwise receive. This displacement only increases infants’ vulnerability
`
`to NEC, as studies show that breast milk protects against the disease. For example, a study
`
`analyzing 1,587 infants across multiple institutions concluded that an exclusive breast milk-based
`
`diet is associated with significant benefits for extremely premature infants and that it produced no
`
`feeding-related adverse outcomes.
`
`24,
`
`For the above reasons, experts acknowledge that breast milk is the best source of
`
`nutrition for preterm infants and those at risk for NEC. Breast milk-based nutrition nourishes
`
`infants while creating a significantly lowerrisk of NEC.
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #15
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7of19 Page ID #15
`
`25.
`
`At the time the Injured Infant was fed Defendant’s products, the science clearly
`
`demonstrated to Defendant that these products cause and greatly increase the likelihood that a
`
`baby will develop NEC, leading to severe injury and often death.
`
`26.
`
`Despite the scientific consensus that Defendant’s cow’s milk-based products
`
`present a dire threat to the health and developmentof preterm infants, Defendants have made no
`
`changes to their products or the products’ packaging, guidelines,
`
`instructions, or warnings.
`
`Instead, Defendant has continued to sell their unreasonably dangerous products to unsuspecting
`
`parents and healthcare providers, generating huge profits as a result.
`
`Abbott’s False and Misleading Marketing Regarding Cow’s Milk Based Infant Products
`
`27.
`
`Abbott has aggressively marketed their cow’s milk-based products as medically
`
`endorsed and nutritionally equivalent alternatives to breast milk, including prior to the Injured
`
`Infant’s birth.
`
`28.|Abbott’s marketing approachincludestargeting the parents ofpreterm infants while
`
`they are still in the hospital with messages that Defendant’s cow’s milk-based formulas and
`
`fortifiers are necessary for the growth and developmentof their vulnerable children. Often these
`
`tactics implicitly discourage mothers from breastfeeding, which reduces the mother’s supply of
`
`breast milk. None of Defendant’s marketing materials, including their promotional websites,
`
`reference the science showing howsignificantly their products increase the risk of NEC.
`
`29,|Numerousstudies have shownthe detrimental impact of formula advertising on the
`
`rates of initiation and continuation of breastfeeding, including studies that show that as “hand
`
`feeding” (non-breastfeeding) advertisements increase, reported breastfeeding rates decrease in the
`
`following year.
`30.
`Undoubtedly aware of the impactof their advertising, Defendant, along with other
`
`formula manufacturers, are willing to spend massive sumsto disseminate their message, with one
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #16
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 8of19 Page ID #16
`
`study estimating that formula manufacturers collectively spent $4.48 billion on marketing and
`
`promotion in 2014 alone.
`
`31.
`
`Recognizing the abuse and dangersofinfant formula marketing, in 1981, the World
`
`Health Assembly—the decision-making body of the World Health Organization— developed the
`
`International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes (“the Code”), which required
`
`companies to acknowledge the superiority of breast milk, the negative effect on breastfeeding of
`
`introducing partial bottle-feeding, and the difficulty of reversing the decision not to breastfeed.
`
`The Codealso forbade advertising or other forms of promotion of formula to the general public,
`
`as well as providing sample products to mothers or members of their families.
`
`32. While Abbott acknowledges the Code on its websites and claims to support the
`
`effort to encourage mothers to breastfeed for as long as possible,thisis little more thanlip service.
`
`Instead, Defendant’s aggressive marketing exploits new parents’ darkest fears—that the nutrition
`
`they are supplying to their child will not provide the best chance of survival— while wholly failing
`
`to warn that their products come with a significantly increased risk of NEC.
`
`33.
`
`For example, Abbott’s website, on a paged titled “Infant Formula Marketing,”
`
`states: “We agree with the World Health Organization that breastfeeding provides the best
`
`nutrition for babies, and we support its goal to increase breastfeeding. We also recognize that for
`
`infants who aren’t breastfed—for medical reasons or otherwise—infant formula is the only
`
`appropriate, safe alternative to meet babies’ nutritional needs.” This statement ignores the
`
`existence of donor milk, as well as human milk-based formula.
`
`34.
`Abbott markets and sells multiple products specifically targeting preterm and low-
`birth-weight infants, including Liquid Protein Fortifier, Similac NeoSure, Similac Human Milk
`
`Fortifiers, Similac Special Care 20, Similac Special Care 24, Similac Special Care 24 High
`
`Protein, and Similac Special Care 30. In advertising these products, Abbott emphasizes the
`Page 7 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #17
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page9of19 Page ID #17
`
`products’ purported ability to assist underdeveloped babies in reaching their growthtargets. For
`
`example, on the since-edited webpage regarding Similac NeoSure, Abbott noted: “Your premature
`
`baby didn’t get her full 9 months in the womb, so her body is working hard to catch up. During
`
`herfirst full year, feed her Similac NeoSure, a nutrient-enriched formula for babies who were born
`
`prematurely, and help support her development.” Yet, no mention was madeof the accompanying
`
`significantly increased risk of NEC. At some point,
`
`the website was edited to remove this
`
`statement. However, upon information and belief, the statement remained on the website until at
`
`least December 2020.
`
`35.
`Formula manufacturers have long used their relationships with hospitals and the
`discharge process to encourage parents to substitute formula for breast milk. They offer free
`
`formula, coupons, and even entire gift baskets to parents in hospitals, medical clinics, and
`
`residential charities where out-of-town families stay while their babies receive long-term
`
`treatment in the NICU.
`
`36.
`
`Through this early targeting, Defendant creates brand loyalty under the guise of a
`
`“medical blessing,”in hopes that new parents continue to use formulaafter they leave the hospital,
`
`resulting in increased expense for parents, significantly increased risk for babies, and increased
`
`profit for Defendant. Defendant’s gift baskets send confusing signals to mothers who are
`
`simultaneously being encouraged to breastfeed by their health care professionals, and they have
`
`been shown to negatively impact breastfeeding rates.
`
`37.
`
`Further, when Defendants recognized a shift in the medical community towards an
`
`exclusive breast milk-based diet for premature infants, Abbott developed a productcalled “Similac
`
`Human Milk Fortifier.” This name is misleading in that it suggests that the product is derived from
`
`breast milk, when,in fact, it is a cow’s milk-based product. One study, for example, found that
`
`only 8.8 percent of parents surveyed in the NICU interpreted “human milk fortifier” as potentially
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #18
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page10o0f19 Page ID #18
`
`meaning a cow’s milk-based product. The packaging appears as:
`
` Be
`
`BONER
`
`E} Abbott
`
` Similac ila
`
`Bortiior pf 2
`
`Saran ik
`
`38.
`
`Defendant has designed powerful misleading marketing campaigns to deceive
`
`parents into believing that: (1) cow’s milk-based products are safe, including for preterm infants;
`
`(2) cow’s milk-based products are equal, or even superior, substitutes to breast milk; (3) cow’s
`
`milk-based products are necessary for proper growth and developmentofpreterm infants; and(4)
`
`physicians consider Defendant’s cow’s milk-based productsa first choice. This marketing scheme
`
`is employed despite Defendant knowing of and failing to warn of the extreme risk of NEC and
`
`death that cow’s milk-based products pose to preterm infants like Injured Infant, Angeli Monzon.
`
`Defendant’s Inadequate Warnings
`
`39.
`
`Despite knowingof the risk of NEC, the packaging of Abbott’s products does not
`
`warn of the significantly increased risk of NEC (and resulting medical conditions, and/or death)
`
`associated with Similac products, or of the magnitude ofthis increased risk. Abbott likewise did
`
`not provide instructions or guidance for how to avoid NEC.
`
`40.—Abbott cites no medicalliterature or research to guide the use ofits products.
`
`41.
`
`Abbott promotes an aggressive marketing campaign designed to make parents
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #19
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11of19 Page ID #19
`
`believe that its products are safe and necessary for the growth of premature infants, despite the
`
`products in fact being extremely dangerous for premature infants. Abbott’s products significantly
`
`increase the chances of a premature infant getting potentially fatal NEC.
`
`42.
`
`The products Abbott markets specifically for premature infants are available at
`
`retail locations and online. No prescription is necessary.
`
`43.
`
`Despite knowing of the risk of NEC, Abbott did not warn of the significantly
`
`increased risk of NEC (and resulting medical conditions, and/or death) associated with its
`
`products, or of the magnitude of this increased risk. Abbott likewise did not provide instructions
`
`or guidance for how to avoid NEC,
`
`44.—_Abbott deceived the public, parents, physicians, other medical professionals, and
`
`medical staff into believing that its products were a safe and necessary alternative, supplement
`
`and/orsubstitute to breast milk.
`
`45.
`
`Despite knowing that its products were being fed to premature infants, often
`
`without the parents’ informed consent, Abbott failed to require or recommend that medical
`
`professionals or hospitals inform parents of the significant risk of NEC or to require that parental
`
`consent be obtained priorto the products being fed to their babies.
`
`Safer Alternative Designs
`Defendant’s cow’s milk-based products made specifically for premature infants are
`
`46.
`
`unreasonably unsafe for those infants. Defendant could have used pasteurized breast milk instead
`
`of cow’s milkin their products, which would have produced a safer product.
`
`47.
`
` Prolacta Bioscience manufactures and sells breast milk-based feeding products,
`
`specifically designed for preterm infants, which contain no cow’s milk. This alternative design
`
`providesall the necessary nutrition for growth and development that cow’s milk-based products
`
`provide, without the same unreasonably dangerous and deadly effects.
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #20
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12o0f19 Page ID #20
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, Abbott was aware of the significantly increased risk of
`
`NEC and death associated with its cow’s milk-based products, and instead of warning of the
`
`dangers, or removing themaltogether, Abbott has continued to use cow’s milk as the foundation
`
`of its products,
`
`OUNT LL STRICT LIABILITY FOR DESIGN DEFECT
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphsasif fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`50.
`
`Abbott, as the manufacturer and/orseller of the products at issue in this litigation,
`
`owed a duty to the consuming public in general, and Plaintiff in particular, to manufacture, sell,
`
`and distribute their products in a manner that was not unreasonably dangerous.
`
`51.
`
`Abbott also owed a duty to the consuming public in general, and Plaintiff in
`
`particular, to manufacture, sell, and distribute its products in a manner that was merchantable and
`
`reasonably suited for the intended use.
`
`52.
`
`Abbott knew that its products would be used to feed premature infants, like the
`
`Injured Infant, and knew, or reasonably should have known, that use of its cow’s milk-based
`
`products significantly increased the risk of NEC, serious injury, and death, and that such use was
`
`therefore unreasonably dangerous to premature infants, not reasonably suited for the use intended,
`
`not merchantable, and had risks that exceeded a reasonable buyer’s expectations. Nonetheless,
`
`Abbott continued to sell and market its defective products as appropriate for premature infants.
`
`53.
`
`The Injured Infant ingested Abbott’s unreasonably dangerous cow’s milk-based
`
`products. The risks of feeding those products to the Injured Infant outweighed the benefits. An
`
`ordinary consumer would not expect those products to carry a significant risk of serious injury
`
`and death from NEC.
`
`54.
`
`Abbott knew, or reasonably should have known, that breast milk-based nutrition
`Page 11 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 13 of 19 Page ID #21
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 130f19 Page ID #21
`
`did notcarry the samerisks of NEC,serious injury, and death that Defendant’s products carry.
`
`55,
`
`Abbott’s products contained cow’s milk at the time they left the manufacturing
`
`facility.
`
`56.
`
`Abbott did not develop a human milk-based product that was safer for premature
`
`infants and did not reformulate its products to reduce the risk of NEC,serious injury, and death,
`
`even though doing so was economically and technologically feasible and even though pasteurized
`
`breast milk was an available alternative.
`
`57.
`
` Abbott’s products were fed to the Injured Infant, which directly and proximately
`
`caused her NEC and long-lasting injuries.
`
`58.
`
`Asa furtherdirect result, Plaintiff Parent incurred medical expenses and suffered
`
`significant emotional distress, loss of income, loss of consortium, and other harms. Herlife has
`
`been significantly affected by the Injured Infant’s injuries.
`
`COUNT I: STRICT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO WARN
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphsas if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`60.
`
`Abbott, as the manufacturer and/orseller of the infant products at issuein this
`
`litigation, owed a duty to the consuming public in general, and Plaintiff in particular, to provide
`
`adequate warnings or instructions about the dangers and risks associated with the use of its
`
`products with preterm infants, specifically including but not limited to the risk of NEC, serious
`
`injury, and death.
`
`61.—Abbott's duty to warnis part ofits general duty to design, manufacture,and sell their
`
`infant products in a mannerthat is reasonably safe for their foreseeable uses. By designingits
`
`products with cow’s milk-based ingredients, Abbot undertook a duty to warn of the unreasonable
`
`risk of harm posed by those ingredients, specifically including the significantly increased risk
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 19 Page ID #22
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14o0f19 Page ID #22
`
`of NEC,severe injury, and death. The failure to warn makesthe productsat issue in this litigation
`
`unreasonably dangerous.
`
`62,
`
`Specifically, Abbott breached its duty to warn of the foreseeablerisks of the infant
`
`productsat issue in this litigation because it knew, or should have known,that its cow’s milk-based
`
`premature infant products would be fed to premature infants like the Injured Infant, and thatits
`
`products might causethoseinfants to develop NEC,severe injury, or death, yetit failed to provide
`
`adequate warnings of those risks. Amongotherrisks, Defendant:
`
`a. Failed to warn that cow’s milk-based products significantly increasethe risk of
`
`NEC,severe injury, and death in those babies; and/or
`
`b. Failed to warn that cow’s milk-based products are unsafe and/or contra-
`
`indicated for premature infants like the Injured Infant; and/or
`
`c. Carried warnings and instructions that are severely inadequate, vague,
`
`confusing, and provide a false sense of security in that they warn and instruct
`
`specifically on certain conditions, but do not warn ofthe significantly increased
`
`risk of NEC and death; and/or
`
`d. Failed to carry a large and prominent “black box”-type warningthat their cow’s
`
`milk-based products are known to significantly increase the risk of NEC and
`
`death when compared to breast milk in premature infants; and/or
`
`e. Failed to disclose well-researched and well-established studies that linked
`
`cow’s milk-based products to NEC and death in premature infants; and/or
`
`f. Failed to insert a warning or instruction to healthcare professionals and other
`
`medical staff in the hospital
`
`that parents should be provided information
`
`necessary to make an informed choice about whether to allow their babies to
`
`be fed Defendants’ products, notwithstanding their substantial risks; and/or
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 15 of 19 Page ID #23
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 150f19 Page ID #23
`
`g. Failed to provide a warning in a method reasonably calculated or expected to
`
`reach the baby’s parents; and/or
`
`h. Failed to provide statistical evidence showing the magnitude of increased risk
`
`of NEC in premature infants associated with cow’s milk-based products.
`
`63.
`
` Abboit’s products contained cow’s milk at the time they left the manufacturing
`
`facility.
`
`64.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the inadequacy of the warnings and the
`
`pervasive marketing campaigns suggesting the safety and necessity of their products, the Injured
`
`Infant was fed cow’s milk-based products, which caused her to develop NEC.
`
`65.
`
`The unwarnedofrisks are not of a kind that an ordinary consumer would expect.
`
`Had physicians and healthcare providers known of the extreme risk associated with feeding
`
`premature infants cow’s milk-based formula, they would not have fed the Injured Infant those
`
`products. Had Plaintiff Parent known ofthe significant risks of feeding the Injured Infant cow’s
`
`milk-based formula, they would not have allowed such products to be fed to their child.
`
`66.
`
`Asa further direct result, Plaintiff Parent incurred medical expenses and suffered
`
`significant emotional distress, loss of income, loss of consortium, and other harms. Her life has
`
`been significantly affected by the Injured Infant’s injuries.
`
`COUNT Ill: NEGLIGENCE
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphsasif fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`68.
`
`Abbott, as the manufacturer and/or seller of the products at issue in this litigation,
`
`owed a duty to the consuming public in general, and Plaintiff in particular, to exercise reasonable
`
`care to design, test, manufacture, inspect, and distribute a product free of unreasonable risk of
`
`harm to users, when such products are used in their intended manner and for their intended
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 16 of 19 Page ID #24
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 16o0f19 Page ID #24
`
`purpose.
`
`69.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the Injured Infant’s health care providers used
`
`the products at issue in their intended mannerandfortheir intended purpose.
`
`70.
`
`Abbott, directly or indirectly, negligently, and/or defectively made, created,
`
`manufactured, designed, assembled, tested, marketed, sold, and/or distributed the cow’s milk-
`
`based infant products at issue in this litigation and thereby breachedtheir duty to the general
`
`public and Plaintiff.
`
`71,
`
`Specifically, although Abbott knew, or reasonably should have known,at the time
`
`of production that its cow’s milk-based infant products significantly increased the risk of NEC,
`
`serious injury, and death,it failed to act in a reasonably prudent mannerand breachedits duty by:
`
`a. Failing to warn that cow’s milk-based products significantly increase therisk
`
`of NEC, severe injury, and death in preterm babies; and/or
`
`b. Failmg to warn that cow’s milk-based products are unsafe and/or contra-
`
`indicated for premature infants like the Injured Infant; and/or
`
`c. Carrying warnings and instructions that are severely inadequate, vague,
`
`confusing, and provide a false sense of security in that they warn and instruct
`
`specifically on certain conditions, but do not warn of the significantly increased
`
`risk of NEC and death; and/or
`
`d. Failing to carry a large and prominent “black box”-type warning that their
`
`cow’s milk-based products are knownto significantly increase the risk of NEC
`
`and death when compared to breast milk in premature infants; and/or
`
`e. Failing to provide well-researched and well-established studies that linked
`
`cow’s milk-based products to NEC and death in premature infants; and/or
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 17 of 19 Page ID #25
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 17o0f19 Page ID #25
`
`f. Failing to insert a warning orinstruction to healthcare professionals and other
`
`medical staff in the hospital
`
`that parents should be provided information
`
`necessary to make an informed choice about whetherto allow their babies to
`
`be fed Defendants’ products, notwithstanding their substantial risks; and/or
`
`g. Failing to provide a warning in a method reasonably calculated/expected to
`
`reach the baby’s parents; and/or
`
`h. Failing to provide statistical evidence showing the magnitude ofincreasedrisk
`
`of NEC in premature infants associated with cow’s milk-based products.
`
`72.
`
`In addition, although Abbott knew, or reasonably should have known,at the time
`
`of production that its cow’s milk-based products significantly increased the risk of NEC, serious
`
`injury, and death,it failed to act in a reasonably prudent mannerand breachedits duty by failing
`
`to perform the necessary processof data collection, detection, assessment, monitoring, prevention,
`
`and reporting or disclosure of adverse outcomesin infants who ingest its products.
`
`73.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to act in a reasonably
`
`prudent mannerand their breach of duty, the Injured Infant was fed cow’s milk-based products,
`
`which caused her to develop NEC.
`
`74.
`
`Had Abbottsatisfied its duties to the consuming public in general, the Injured Infant
`
`would not have been exposedto their unreasonably dangerous cow’s milk-based products.
`
`75,
`
`As a furtherdirect result, Plaintiff Parent incurred medical expenses and suffered
`
`significant emotional distress, loss of income, loss of consortium, and other harms. Their lives
`
`have been significantly affected by the Injured Infant’s injuries.
`
`COUNT. VI: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
`
`76,
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphsas if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #26
`Case 3:21-cv-01703 Document1-2 Filed 12/17/21 Page 180f19 Page ID #26
`
`77.
`
`Loss of filial consortium is a derivative claim. It is derivative of each ofthe claims
`
`and allegations above.
`
`78.
`
`79,
`
`At all relevant times Plaintiff Parent was the Injured Infant’s lawful parent.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s tortious conduct, Plaintiff Parent suffered a loss of
`
`affection, companionship, society, and consortiumof their children.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
`
`80.|For compensatory damages in an amountto be provenattrial;
`
`81.
`
`For damagesfor past, present, and future emotionaldistress, loss of enjoyment of
`
`life, pain and suffering, mental anguish,
`
`loss of consortium, and other non-economic losses
`
`sustained as a result of Defendant’s conduct;
`
`82.
`
`For past, present, and future out-of-pocket costs, lost income and/or lost revenue,
`
`and/or lost profits, and/or lost business opportun