U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer denied Mead Johnson & Company’s motion to exclude Dr. Logan Spector’s testimony, finding his general causation opinion regarding cow’s-milk-based formula and necrotizing enterocolitis is relevant to the case of a premature infant who died after birth.
The case, Inman v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, is part of the multidistrict litigation concerning preterm infant nutrition products. Plaintiff Alexis Inman alleges that Enfamil Premature Formula, manufactured by Mead Johnson, caused her son Daniel to develop necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and die in 2020.
Daniel was born at 29 weeks gestation and weighed less than two pounds. He was initially fed breast milk, then switched to cow’s-milk-based hydrolyzed, hypoallergenic formulas Nutramigen and Pregestimil due to concerns about a genetic disorder. After that disorder was ruled out, doctors resumed breast milk feeds before switching Daniel exclusively to Enfamil Premature Formula about 30 days after birth. He subsequently developed NEC and died.
Mead Johnson argued that Dr. Spector’s testimony should be excluded because it does not “fit” the specific facts of Daniel’s case, pointing to the brief period he was fed alternative formulas. The defense contended this deviation rendered the expert’s general causation opinion irrelevant.
Pallmeyer rejected the argument, noting that Dr. Spector’s opinion addresses the link between cow’s-milk-based formula and NEC among infants born at Daniel’s level of prematurity. She distinguished this case from a prior exclusion in the Diggs bellwether, where the infant was born at 32 weeks and weighed more than 2,000 grams—criteria that would have excluded him from most studies relied upon by Dr. Spector.
“The Inman infant, in contrast, was firmly within the weight and age of infants considered relied upon by Dr. Spector,” Pallmeyer wrote.
The judge also addressed the defense’s suggestion that the hydrolyzed formulas might be an intervening cause. She wrote that this is an “intervening causation argument dressed up as a Daubert ‘fit’ argument,” noting that such issues are typically the domain of specific causation witnesses and are questions for the jury.
Pallmeyer further explained that randomized clinical trials often use an “intention to treat” doctrine, meaning participants are analyzed to which they were assigned regardless of subsequent changes in treatment. She cited a 2024 study by Colaizy where infants switched to an “open label diet” were still included assessment.
“Dr. Spector’s testimony fits this specific case, as well, because he opines as to a link between CMBF and necrotizing enterocolitis among infants born roughly at Daniel’s prematurity,” she wrote. “That Daniel was occasionally fed hydrolyzed formulas does not render Dr. Spector’s opinion irrelevant to this case.”
The court concluded that Dr. Spector’s testimony is relevant, fits the facts, and will be helpful to the jury. He may testify, which is the fourth in an initial wave of bellwether trials designed to provide information for the broader MDL.
Pallmeyer is a George H.W. Bush appointee.