The Trial Lawyer: What are juries responding to most powerfully in these NEC cases? Is it the medical evidence alone, or is there something deeper happening emotionally in the courtroom?
Papantonio: The medical evidence is obviously critical, but what juries respond to most powerfully is the human story behind the science. These are some of the most vulnerable patients imaginable, premature infants fighting for survival in NICUs while parents are relying entirely on the medical system and product manufacturers to provide safe nutrition.
When juries hear evidence that safer alternatives or different feeding strategies existed, or that critical risk information may not have been adequately communicated, it creates a very emotional and deeply human reaction. There is also something uniquely powerful about these cases because the injuries occur at the very beginning of life. The courtroom is not just hearing about statistics or abstract medical complications. They are hearing about families whose lives changed forever within days of a child being born.
“ NEC litigation has evolved into a broader discussion about corporate responsibility, transparency, and risk communication in neonatal care.”
--Sara Papantonio, Esq., Levin Papantonio
The Trial Lawyer: Do you believe NEC litigation is evolving beyond a traditional scientific causation fight and becoming a broader conversation about corporate accountability and risk communication involving premature infants?
Papantonio: Absolutely. While scientific causation remains central, NEC litigation has evolved into a broader discussion about corporate responsibility, transparency, and risk communication in neonatal care. The core question juries are increasingly being asked to consider is not simply whether formula can contribute to NEC, but whether manufacturers appropriately balanced profit motives against known safety concerns involving premature infants. These cases are forcing a larger conversation about what obligations companies have when marketing products into NICUs and whether physicians and families were given the full picture regarding risks and available alternatives. That accountability component is becoming increasingly important in the courtroom.
The Trial Lawyer: How significant are the recent appellate rulings and verdict affirmations to the future direction of this litigation?
Papantonio: The recent appellate rulings and verdict affirmations are extremely significant because they reinforce that these cases belong in front of juries. Appellate courts affirming these verdicts send a strong signal that plaintiffs’ claims are supported by legally sufficient evidence and that juries are entitled to weigh the competing scientific testimony. That matters enormously in mass tort litigation because appellate outcomes often shape the trajectory of future filings, settlement discussions, and trial strategy. It also gives families confidence that these cases are not isolated results but part of a broader legal recognition that these claims deserve serious consideration.
The Trial Lawyer: As someone who’ s leading these cases at Levin Papantonio, what do you think the plaintiffs’ bar should be paying closest attention to over the next year in NEC litigation?
Papantonio: Over the next year, I think the plaintiffs’ bar needs to stay intensely focused on three areas: science, corporate conduct evidence, and case-specific storytelling. The science will continue to evolve, particularly around feeding protocols, donor milk alternatives, and the body of literature connecting cow’ s milk-based nutrition to NEC risk in premature infants.
At the same time, internal corporate documents, marketing strategies, and communications about risk will remain critically important because juries want to understand not just what companies knew, but how they acted on that knowledge. Finally, these cases require careful attention to the individual child and family story. The most effective presentations are the ones that connect complex medical evidence to the real-world consequences these families continue to live with every day.
The Trial Lawyer: When you sit across from families in these cases, what stands out to you most about the impact NEC has had on them?
Papantonio: What stands out most is how completely lifealtering NEC can be for these families. Many parents walk into the NICU expecting challenges associated with prematurity, but nothing prepares them for watching a newborn undergo emergency surgeries, severe infections, long-term complications, or, in some cases, not survive at all. Even in cases where a child survives, families often describe years of ongoing medical care, developmental concerns, feeding difficulties, and emotional trauma.
There is also a profound sense of guilt that many parents carry because they trusted the products and recommendations given during an incredibly vulnerable moment. Sitting with these families, you quickly realize these are not just lawsuits to them. They are attempts to find answers, accountability, and some measure of justice for what their children endured.
88 The Trial Lawyer