Facebook Pixel


Baby Formula Lawsuit Lawyer | NEC

start your free consultation
Home Baby Formula Lawsuit Lawyer | NEC

Baby Formula Lawsuit Lawyer | NEC

baby bottle

Baby formulas are often used in the hospital and at home to supplement or even replace breast milk. Particularly in premature birth, a mother may not produce enough milk for regular feedings, or her breastfeeding ability may be limited by exceptional circumstances. Parents and caregivers turn to trusted name-brand companies for formula-feeding newborns in those cases. However, concerns about some baby formulas and their effects on premature, severely underweight, or sickly babies have continued to grow.

Table of Contents

Baby Formulas Linked to Infant Illness and Death

Premature, immunocompromised, and low birth weight babies are at elevated risk of a severe gastrointestinal condition called necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC, which affects about 1 in 1000 preterm babies. NEC is caused by a bacterial breach of the intestinal wall, through which bacteria pass into the abdomen and/or bloodstream. Tissues of the intestinal tract can become inflamed and die. Serious cases of NEC produce life-threatening conditions like intestinal perforation, peritonitis (inflammation of the abdominal membrane), and sepsis (overwhelming immune system response). Too often, severe cases of NEC result in death.

While NEC may be mild in some babies, it is a leading cause of illness and death in preterm babies and is fatal in 10%-50% of cases. In surgical cases involving bowel perforation, peritonitis, and sepsis, the NEC mortality is close to 100%. Obviously, this is the most tragic possible outcome, but even in cases where babies survive NEC, some suffer serious lifelong disorders and disabilities.

Infants Most Vulnerable to NEC

While healthy full-term babies can and do develop NEC, about 85% of cases occur in babies:

  • Born before the 35th week of gestation, with the highest risk under 32 weeks
  • Of low birth weight (under 1500g, or 3.3 lbs.)
  • With low oxygen levels
  • With cardiac complications; and/or
  • Who was fed formula to replace or supplement human milk

When looking at the above issues, notice that formula feeding is the one preventable aggravating risk factor.

Breastmilk, which strengthens the immune system, provides significant protection against various illnesses, including type 1 diabetes, asthma, and NEC. Many leading brands of formula, however, lack the antibodies and easy-to-digest nutrition of breastmilk and can overwhelm the fragile digestive systems of compromised newborns, sometimes leading to disastrous outcomes. Often, the formula is delivered enterally via a stomach tube, which further increases an infant’s risk of developing NEC. NEC is especially prevalent in infants requiring care in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). NEC accounts for close to 8% of all admissions to NICUs.

While NEC is less common in infants weighing more than 3.3 lbs, it can present more seriously in larger preterm infants than it does in smaller ones, demonstrating what an unpredictable disease NEC can be.

Necrotizing Enterocolitis Symptoms

NEC usually develops 2-3 weeks after birth but may take 6 weeks. Symptoms may develop over a few days or come on suddenly without warning. An infant may have a single sign or several, including:

  • Abdominal pain, tenderness
  • Bloated, distended belly
  • Vomiting (often greenish or yellow)
  • Diarrhea
  • Bloody stool
  • Poor feeding
  • Inability to gain weight
  • Low heart rate
  • Low oxygen levels
  • Halted or labored breathing (apnea)
  • Fluctuating body temperature
Types of NEC
  • Classic NEC describes the most common type, usually affecting babies born before 28 weeks of development. Symptoms typically appear within 2-3 weeks but may take up to 6 weeks to develop.
  • Full-term NEC most often affects babies born with a congenital illness, birth defect, or low oxygen levels or who underwent a difficult delivery.
  • Transfusion-related NEC affects roughly 1/3 of infants who receive a blood transfusion for anemia and usually generates symptoms just days after the transfusion.
  • Atypical NEC is a distinctive form that produces symptoms within the first week.
Stages of NEC 

The following categorizations describe the clinical symptoms associated with NEC.

Stage I: Commonly, a baby may present with abdominal swelling, lethargy, fluctuating temperature, vomiting, and/or a reduced heart rate. Blood may be present in the vomit or stool. The infant is in dire distress even at this first stage.

Stage 2: Intestinal dilation and inflammation, pneumatosis intestinalis (gas in the intestinal wall), and other documented conditions confirm NEC. Belly tenderness, a low blood platelet count, metabolic acidosis, and other symptoms may be present. 

Stage 3: In this most dangerous stage, the infant may present with low blood pressure, reduced white blood cells, respiratory problems, abdominal gas, fluid retention in the abdomen and/or around the lungs, irregular heartbeat, and other serious concerns.

Mild cases of NEC are often effectively treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, stopping enteral feeding and/or expanding the stomach using a nasogastric tube. In cases where the bowel is perforated, emergency surgery is necessary. All too often, advanced stage 3 NEC is fatal. 

Milk-based Formula and NEC 

Cow’s milk-based baby formulas and fortifiers present a leading cause of preventable NEC, particularly in premature babies. In particular, high protein formulas are linked to an increased chance of a preterm baby developing NEC. NEC cases involving severe illness and death have resulted in multiple lawsuits against the manufacturers of some of the most commonly-used formulas.

Mead Johnson & Company LLC, the maker of the well-known Enfamil formulas, faces multiple lawsuits alleging that its formula caused serious injury or death to premature or otherwise susceptible babies.

In a 2012 case, it was alleged that a premature baby that was fed Enfamil suffered brain damage and cerebral palsy due to Mead Johnson’s failure to adequately test and monitor its products. While Mead Johnson denied wrongdoing, the company ultimately settled the case for an undisclosed amount.

Mead Johnson is being sued by a Georgia mother who claims that her infant son, who was fed Enfamil formula while in a NICU, developed NEC and died. The lawsuit alleges that the company knew that its Enfamil cow’s milk-based formulas posed a danger to premature babies, and yet continued to promote its use and used misleading language to describe its products, including the words “human milk fortifiers,” which could lead one to assume the product contains human milk, and not cow’s milk.

Similac manufacturer, Abbott Laboratories, faces similar NEC lawsuits yet denies any wrongdoing.

FDA Warns Consumers About Contaminated Formula 

In addition to individual and class-action NEC cases, a formula company can also be responsible for failing to properly monitor and control the sanitation and quality of its products. According to the CDC, an Abbott facility in Sturgis, Michigan, produced powdered infant formula that exposed infants to the harmful bacteria Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport. These bacteria strains are known to cause severe illness and death. As a result of these contaminations, the FDA advised caregivers not to use powdered infant formulas bearing the brand names Similac, Alimentum, or EleCare if:

  • The first two digits of the code are 22 through 37; and
  • the code on the container contains K8, S.H. or Z2; and
  • the expiration date is 4-1-2022 (APR 2022) or later.

While Abbott did initiate a recall of these products, it was too little, too late for the formerly healthy babies across three states who were hospitalized and the one that died after consuming formula made at the facility.

Even some plant-based formulas may be called into question. In February of 2023, infant formula maker Reckitt voluntarily recalled two batches of its ProSobee 12.9 oz. Simply Plant-Based Infant Formula due to possible Cronobacter cross-contamination. While the company acted responsibly in initiating the recall, and no adverse complaints have surfaced, it speaks to concerns about the reliability of some trusted companies’ oversight and quality control of baby formulas.

Cronobacter bacteria can result in sepsis and meningitis, both serious and potentially life-threatening infections. Some research suggests that more than 90% of Cronobacter infections in infants are related to the use of powdered formula.

Who is Responsible for Formula-related Infant Illness and Death? 

Premature, low birth weight and congenitally sick infants often have weak digestive tracts that cannot digest bovine milk. In addition, their underdeveloped cardiac, respiratory, and immune systems can leave them vulnerable to severe problems when metabolizing cow’s milk. Not only does this create an inability to absorb the necessary nutrients provided by the wide range of Similac and Enfamil formulas, but it can also cause delicate intestines to become inflamed, allowing dangerous, even deadly, bacteria to leak into the body. In cases where NEC leads to bowel perforation, the mortality rate is as high as 76%.

As a parent or caregiver tending to a newborn, should your duties include code checking to ensure a brand-name baby formula isn’t toxic? And how many parents know that cow’s milk-based formulas significantly increase a preterm or low birth weight newborn’s chance of developing NEC? Even many medical workers remain unaware of this fact.

But who has known of this dangerous relationship for years? Abbott and Mead Johnson. It is an outrageous proposal by Abbott and Mead Johnson that they’re not liable for the tragic and woeful outcomes generated by their negligent or reckless actions and inactions. In addition to the severe emotional toll, parents are often left with staggering and ongoing medical debts.

The lack of care demonstrated by manufacturers Abbott and Mead Johnson has resulted in the justifiable outrage of parents who entrusted their infants’ feeding to established products like Similac and Enfamil. Since Similac and Enfamil account for about 40% of the country’s infant formulas, it’s natural that consumers would grant these products with a presumption of quality, safety, and soundness.

Consider the names of some formulas being marketed to nourish preterm and low-weight babies:

  • Similac Human Milk Fortifier – Based on its name, this cow’s milk product could seem to be made of human milk.
  • Similac Special Care 24 High Protein – “Special care” indicates extra gentleness, yet high protein formulas are linked to an increased risk of NEC.
  • Enfamil Premature 20 Cal – With “premature” in the name, it claims to be designed just for preemies, belying the risks.

Even as infants have developed formula-related health problems and more lawsuits have emerged, Mead Johnson and Abbott Laboratories continue to market Similac and Enfamil products as safe, even favorable, for premature babies. Despite multiple legal actions, their marketing encourages parents, hospitals, and neonatal units to feed these formulas to infants, including vulnerable premature and underweight babies. Even though cow’s milk-based formulas have resulted in distressing, costly, and too-often fatal results, these manufacturers refuse to accept liability or to even warn the public. For example, Mead Johnson continues to market its cow’s milk-based Enfamil NeuroPro EnfaCare Infant Formula as being recommended for “babies born prematurely or at a low birth weight” that are “born prematurely transitioning to home.” The inference can be made that this product is being marketed to both parents and neonatal units as safe for premature babies. If NEC is often more common in preterm babies fed cow’s milk-based formulas and fortifiers than breast milk, it stands to reason that parents and medical personnel should be given warnings.

It is outrageous that these companies, knowing the risks, fail to include warning labels on these products and continue to market them as being a preferred method to feed the most vulnerable babies. Legal action can become an instrument of change in cases of NEC and bacterial infection caused by baby formula. No settlement will ever fully compensate a parent for an infant’s suffering or tragic loss. But legal redress can send a resounding message to these companies that their actions come with consequences. Sometimes companies don’t care about public outcry until it impacts their bottom line.

At the Law Offices of Edward A. Smith, we are committed to sending a powerful message to baby formula companies whose reckless, even deadly, actions imperil the most vulnerable. Their unconscionable practices must be met with the force necessary to motivate them to act responsibly, not only for the sake of the babies they have injured but also to help prevent future harm.

NEC Lawsuits

Because many premature and low birth weight infants (as well as some full-term babies) have become seriously ill or died after being fed formulas made of bovine milk, multiple class action NEC baby formula lawsuits have been initiated.

Again, the risks cow’s milk poses to vulnerable babies aren’t new.

  • A 1990 study published in The Lancet explored a possible connection between cow’s milk-based baby formulas and NEC, noting a multifold increase in NEC occurrence among formula-fed preterm infants.
  • A 2011 statement from the US Surgeon General mentioned that formula feeding is associated with higher rates of necrotizing enterocolitis for vulnerable premature infants.
  • In 2019, the Cochrane Library published a randomized study of twelve trials comparing the growth and development of preterm or low birth weight babies fed formula and donor breast milk and concluded that formula, either as a supplement or sole source of nutrition, results in an increased risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis.
  • Research by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) shows that breastfeeding reduces the risk of NEC by 77% compared to formula.

These are just a few medical research studies published over the years; there are far more supporting these findings.

The Costs of NEC 

The costs of NEC impact both babies and parents, sometimes for life. 

Babies afflicted with NEC are typically treated with strong antibiotics to address the infection. In more severe cases, intestinal resection surgery is needed to remove necrotic tissue from the digestive tract, shortening the bowel. Many infants lucky enough to survive a serious bout of NEC often face life-long consequences, including:

  • Chronic digestive problems
  • Bowel strictures (narrowing of the intestines)
  • Bowel obstructions
  • Short bowel/short gut syndrome
  • Adhesion of bowel membranes
  • Fistulas
  • Abscesses
  • Sepsis
  • Being underweight
  • Nutrient malabsorption
  • Delayed neurological development
  • Cholestasis (limited bile flow from the liver)

In addition to the terror and anxiety NEC can visit upon parents, the costs to treat more severe cases can be monumental. Recent data shows that the cost to treat a nonsurgical case of NEC averages between $180,000 and $198,000.

Severe NEC leads to surgery in roughly 20-40% of cases, requiring laparotomy and ostomy (creating a stoma in the abdomen). The cost to treat NEC requiring surgical intervention typically exceeds $300,000. The costs of long-term health problems associated with NEC are far beyond that dollar amount, especially surgically-treated NEC.

When an infant survives surgical NEC, it will likely suffer from serious complications, including neurodevelopmental delay, digestive disorders, and other lifelong problems. One in every three will endure painful and problematic intestinal strictures. At 6-36 months, many babies experience ongoing feeding difficulties, sometimes requiring gastrointestinal ostomy. Parents whose babies survive surgical treatment of NEC can expect to spend roughly $97,000 in healthcare costs during their child’s first three years of life. Babies being medically treated without surgery typically require an additional $5000 in healthcare costs from ages 6 to 12 months.

A prolonged stay in the hospital can also expose an already-sick and fragile infant to other complications, such as nosocomial (healthcare-associated) infections related to extended exposure to drug-resistant pathogens, the overuse of antibiotics, problems stemming from enteral feeding tubes or surgical incisions, and other dismal circumstances.

The cost of a baby’s health or life is beyond measure, and it is an agony no parent should be forced to endure.

Formula-related cases of NEC often require legal action to address the related pain, suffering, and loss and motivate the offending companies to change their policies and sufficiently warn parents and medical professionals before more infants are endangered. Sadly, even when faced with decades of evidence of the potential dangers of their products, Mead Johnson and Abbott have elected to do nothing, factoring the loss of business against the comparatively small risk of babies’ loss of health and life. With fewer than 10% of babies born under 37 weeks old and only a fraction of those ever developing NEC, Mead Johnson and Abbott may view the risks as negligible when weighed against the possible impact on formula sales. After all, even parents of healthy, full-term babies might think twice about feeding their infants formulas bearing warning labels.

When to Consult an NEC Baby Formula Lawyer

If your baby was fed a Similac or Enfamil formula or fortifying product in the NICU, hospital, or by you at home and developed NEC sometime within the following days or weeks, it may be the fault of the infant formula. Necrotizing enterocolitis has different causes, including very low birth weight, congenital underdevelopment of lungs and/or heart, poor immune systems, leaky gut, enteral feeding, and other situations that can occur, especially in babies born before 32 weeks. But preterm, sick, and/or underweight babies being fed cow’s milk-based Similac or Enfamil formula are at increased risk of developing NEC – some studies estimate by as much as 6-10 times the rate of those nourished with human milk. What is particularly disturbing is that research began associating cow’s milk-based formulas with an increased risk of NEC among preterm babies in 1990. In 2009, the Journal of Pediatrics published a study concluding: “For extremely premature infants, an exclusively human milk-based diet is associated with significantly lower rates of NEC and surgical NEC compared to a mother’s milk-based diet that also includes bovine milk-based products.” This study showed alarming differences in fetal health and development when cow’s milk was used only part-time as a supplement. One can extrapolate that exclusively using a bovine milk-based formula worsens possible outcomes.

While the medical professionals who fed your premature baby Similac or Enfamil fortifiers may also be partly culpable, they too may have fallen victim to misleading, even specious, marketing by these powerful formula companies. Like most parents, many medical workers assume that brand-name products designed and marketed for premature and underweight babies are safe – even health-promoting. While these products may be safe for some preterm babies, no parent wants to put their infant at risk. If you saw a warning label on Similac or Enfamil stating it could significantly increase the risk of your vulnerable infant developing a hazardous, sometimes-fatal disease, would you allow the medical professionals at the NICU to feed it to your baby? And would you provide it to your baby at home?

Of course not.

Despite the long-known risks of cow’s milk-based formulas to premature and very low-weight infants, companies like Mead Johnson and Abbott continue to market these products to NICUs, hospitals, and unsuspecting parents nationwide and worldwide.

In some cases, medical facilities’ motives may also be questioned. Both Abbott and Mead Johnson contribute money to medical research and grants, creating relationships with various healthcare entities and staff that could influence their decisions. In addition, government services programs often cover the costs of manufactured formula, creating a financial incentive for many hospitals and NICUs to use it instead of promoting human donor milk.

Individual Lawsuit vs. NEC Class Action Lawsuit

Ignoring more than 30 years of medical science and the too-often unconscionable effects on defenseless babies and their parents, multibillion-dollar companies Abbot and Mead Johnson continue to market their products to healthcare professionals and the public without warning them of the prospective dangers they may pose to more vulnerable newborns. As a result, lawsuits continue to amass. As well as they should. The horrors of having a baby fall desperately ill, suffer lifelong health problems, endure surgery, or tragically die are unimaginable. That these companies continue to reap profits without sufficient regard for health and well-being is unacceptable. Shockingly, companies in the baby business can be so cavalier in their actions. While placing a warning label on their products might cost them some revenue, it is correct. There is no justification for greed compared to the safety of helpless newborns and the potential terror, heartbreak, and devastating expense visited upon parents.

Legal action against Mead Johnson and Abbott is more than compensation for pain, suffering, loss, and overwhelming financial responsibilities. It is also meant to help promote meaningful changes in labeling and marketing to protect babies, parents, and medical professionals from the potential dangers of feeding bovine milk formulas to premature, severely underweight, and ill newborns.

NEC Lawsuit Example 1

In January of 2022, a mother filed a lawsuit against Mead Johnson & Company LLC and Mead Nutrition Company, alleging that her premature baby was “doing well” and demonstrating normal development while on breast milk. Two weeks after it was born, it was fed Enfamil formula for several days, which the mother claimed caused her infant to develop NEC, necessitating emergency medical intervention. A week later, her baby died. The devastated mother initiated a lawsuit alleging the company knew of the NEC risks its formula posed to premature infants and failed to provide sufficient warning. 

The Statute of Limitations on NEC Cases

What is notable about the case above is that the tragedy occurred in 2013, which, in many legal actions, would make it subject to a statute of limitations. But in Illinois, where both Abbott and Mead Johnson are headquartered, courts have established legal doctrines that, in certain circumstances, will extend the statute of limitations. Illinois also allows attorneys from all 50 states, from California to Kansas to New York, to engage in lawsuits, including class actions. This is why a major NEC federal class action lawsuit representing dozens of plaintiffs from across the country is pending in Illinois.

In California, the statute of limitations to file a personal injury lawsuit is two years from the date of an injury or wrongful death. A medical malpractice lawsuit must be filed within one year of discovering the damage or within three years from the wound, whichever is first. However, the deadline can sometimes be extended when a discovery rule is successfully presented. If the affected child survives, they will have two years after their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit for product liability in California.

No parent of a baby afflicted with NEC ever considered the possibility that formula that was marketed as safe and appropriate for their premature infant might be the cause of their child’s devastating disease. Sadly, parents whose babies become ill or even die from NEC have no idea why it happened.

Medical professionals are often ill-informed about the dangers of feeding Similac and Enfamil to premature, low birth weight, or sickly babies. After all, Abbott and Mead Johnson don’t place these warnings on their formulas; they label them as explicitly designed for premature and underweight babies.

While the research has been around for decades, and Mead Johnson and Abbott have been aware of the findings for many years, the dangers of bovine milk to vulnerable preemies have recently become public awareness.

That’s why, if your baby developed NEC after being fed formula, it is essential to contact an NEC birth injury lawyer immediately to assess your case. Your options will be outlined as soon as possible. 

NEC Lawsuit Example 2

The mother of a preterm baby discovered that during the infant’s short 68-day life in a NICU, healthcare workers had transitioned the baby’s feeding from breastmilk only to Enfamil mixed with breastmilk. Similac mixed with breastmilk and, finally, Similac as a standalone nutrition source. After her baby died, the mother filed a claim against Abbott and Mead Johnson for failing to warn about the possible dangers that cow’s milk-based formula poses to premature infants. The companies’ defense against this tragedy was to hide behind the “learned intermediary doctrine,” claiming their responsibility to warn was limited to the baby’s prescribing physician or learned intermediary. Their outrageous claim that they bear no responsibility to their parents is galling. And, even if their argument had merit, can we trust that the makers of products labeled “Premature Infant Formula” warned any healthcare professional not to feed them to a premature baby?

Of course, mighty giants Mead and Abbott will continue to defend their products and actions with arguments of preemption, FDA allowance, a lack of medical certainty that cow’s milk-based formulas actually cause NEC, and that the Infant Formula Act of 1980, 21 U.S. Code § 350a protects them against infant formula lawsuits. Despite their high-powered legal teams, these companies’ arguments have been repeatedly defeated across multiple jurisdictions.

Continued pressure and forceful legal action may be the only way to get these companies to correct their marketing strategies and clarify the possible risks of their products.

Baby Formula and Bacterial Infection

Near the end of 2021, the Food and Drug Administration began to be notified about cases of Cronobacter and salmonella infections among otherwise healthy, full-term infants fed powdered formula produced by Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan plant. Such bacterial infections can have severe digestive problems, meningitis, sepsis, and even death. Some research suggests powdered infant formula is responsible for more than 90% of Cronobacter infections in infants.

The factory may be linked to two infant deaths by Cronobacter infection, yet Abbott denies responsibility. The company’s scorched earth legal maneuvers have shielded it from taking responsibility. However, as toxic baby formula cases continue to be filed, scrutiny against Abbott and other formula makers is mounting.

In March of 2023, baby formula giant Perrigo Company, the makers of Gerber baby products, issued a voluntary recall of its Gerber Good Start SoothePro Powdered Infant Formula due to a possible Cronobacter sakazakii infection at its Eau Claire, Wisconsin facility. While none of the recalled products have thus far tested positive for this dangerous bacterium, the recall shows that even the most known and trusted names can be associated with risks to the health and safety of newborns.

Individual NEC Lawsuit vs. NEC Class Action Lawsuit 

As of January 2023, 97 NEC baby formula lawsuits were filed and transferred to Illinois’s consolidated multidistrict litigation (MDL) class action.

If your baby developed NEC after being fed a Similac or Enfamil product, you may wonder which would be better for you: an individual lawsuit or part of a class action suit.

NEC Class Action Case Pros and Cons

Class action suits can strengthen and support many plaintiffs, giving them weight against big companies. Filing as part of a class action typically costs plaintiffs very little out-of-pocket expense.

However, how your case is handled, and the settlement you receive will be out of your hands. It can be difficult – if not impossible – to file an appeal for a losing judgment. And class action suits can take a long time to settle, which can delay compensation, sometimes for years. Finally, compensation for your case may be less than what you might collect if you filed your lawsuit individually. 

Fighting the Toxic Infant Formula Giants

Because a jury trial can be time-consuming and stressful, reaching a settlement out of court is sometimes the most favorable option. Most parents want the ordeal to be over as quickly as possible, provided the compensation is adequate to address the pain, suffering, and medical bills, including projected future expenses. Companies are often eager to settle such cases rapidly to avoid bad publicity. But when their offers are insufficient to cover the sometimes-devastating consequences of their actions, our legal team is ready to fight vigorously for our client’s rights. Sometimes a jury must hear of a tiny baby’s pain, suffering, or death and the testimony of overwhelmed or devastated parents.

Abbott, Mead Johnson, and other infant formula manufacturers have influential law firms representing them, and they use their massive resources to tilt the legal scales in their favor. If you intend to file an NEC formula claim, it is essential to choose a law firm that isn’t intimidated by these companies’ efforts to bury lawsuits under an avalanche of paperwork, discovery requests, and other bureaucratic diversions. Whichever firm you choose to represent your case, make sure it has the legal and financial resources necessary to fight against these behemoths and is ready to take them to trial if necessary.

We must hold these multibillion-dollar companies accountable for the suffering, injury, chronic health problems, or death of vulnerable newborns and the agonizing personal and financial costs to parents.

Our California injury attorneys will evaluate your NEC baby formula case and discuss the action that might best suit your situation at no cost to you. Your case review will remain completely confidential.

Watch the video below to learn how our Northern California personal injury lawyers can help you with your case.

California Baby Formula Lawsuit Lawyers

Contact our law offices today to help avoid Abbott and Mead Johnson’s efforts to shield themselves behind the statute of limitations. Once your case is reviewed and a suit can be filed, our legal team will handle the rest. Our Sacramento products liability lawyers will employ our full legal expertise, strength, and experience to demand just compensation for you and your child and consult with doctors, other medical professionals, industry specialists, and cost projection experts to help bolster your case and determine a just settlement. Call our legal team at (916) 921-6400 or (800) 404-5400 for free, friendly advice.

See our successful cases of Verdicts and Settlements.

Photo attribution by okensanofa on Pixabay

KN [cs 4634] cha