K.W. was born prematurely on August 28, 2017. Shortly after K.W. was born, Whitfield, K.W.’s mother, began having trouble producing breast milk. As a result, K.W.’s providers at St. Louis Children’s Hospital’s (“SLCH”) began feeding him Appellants’ specialized preterm infant formulas, which are designed to meet the unique nutritional needs of infants born prematurely. On September 13, 2017, K.W. was diagnosed with NEC and underwent surgery. K.W. was discharged from SLCH after months in the neonatal intensive care unit.
On July 6, 2022, K.W., by and through Whitfield, filed a petition against Mead, Abbott, and SLCH. Subsequently, K.W. filed an amended petition on July 10, 2024. The amended petition sought punitive damages and asserted claims of products liability (product defect and failure to warn) and negligence against Abbott and Mead. In relevant part, K.W. alleged Appellants’ preterm infant formulas are “defective and unreasonably dangerous” because they “significantly increase[] the risk of NEC,” and their formulas caused K.W.’s injuries. K.W. further alleged Appellants failed to provide any warnings regarding the risk of NEC. Lastly, the amended petition alleged a medical negligence claim against SLCH.
After a four-week trial, the jury found in favor of defendants on all counts. On November 18, 2024, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Abbott, Mead, and SLCH on all of K.W.’s claims. A month later, K.W. filed a motion for new trial. Subsequently, SLCH filed a petition for approval of a minor settlement, and the trial court entered an order approving the settlement between K.W. and SLCH. Then, the trial court granted Respondents’ motion for new trial against Abbott and Mead.
In granting K.W.’s motion, the trial court stated several reasons for ordering a new trial. In relevant part, the trial court found “the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and in accordance with Rule 78.02, a new trial is appropriate.”
The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District stated in its August 11, 2026 Opinion: “This Court is constrained by its standard of review and the principles governing the grant of a motion for new trial. Thus, this Court denies Abbott’s Points Eight, Nine, Ten, and Eleven and Mead’s Points Four, Five, and Six, and finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the ground the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the order is affirmed on that basis and we do not reach the merits of the remaining points on appeal.”
“]I]n reviewing the trial court’s grant of a motion for a new trial, this Court is not permitted to consider whether there was substantial evidence to support a verdict in favor of the defendants. See Talley v. Swift Transp. Co., 320
S.W.3d 752, 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). Rather, this Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision … this Court finds the trial court’s order granting a new trial was on the discretionary ground the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Being constrained by our standard of review, and for the foregoing reasons, this Court holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a new trial was warranted on the ground the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.”
Source K.W. v. St. Louis Childrens Hospital, ED113441.
If your premature baby suffered Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) after being fed formula, you should promptly find a NEC lawyer who may investigate your birth injury medical malpractice claim for you and represent you and your loved one in a NEC malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find birth injury malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
