(844) 230-7676
Language
A recent $32 million judgment against Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital has sent shockwaves through neonatal care, medical malpractice, and product liability litigation nationwide. At the heart of the case is a foundational principle of medical ethics and law: parents have the right to informed consent when making decisions about their child’s medical care.
The ruling underscores growing legal scrutiny of how hospitals disclose risks, obtain consent, and communicate with families—especially when caring for premature infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).
The Death of a Premature Infant and the Use of Cow-Based Formula
The case arose from the tragic death of Aries-Reign Peterson, a premature infant born at 27 weeks gestation in January 2018. Aries’ parents explicitly instructed hospital staff that their son was to be fed only breast milk.
Despite those instructions, Yale New Haven Hospital administered a cow-based fortifier and infant formula without the parents’ knowledge or consent.
Days later, Aries developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a severe and often fatal gastrointestinal disease that disproportionately affects premature infants. He died weeks later from complications related to the condition.
What Is Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC)?
Necrotizing enterocolitis is a devastating intestinal disease primarily seen in premature babies. It causes inflammation and tissue death in the intestines and can rapidly lead to infection, organ failure, and death.
Court Finds Failure to Obtain Informed Consent
After a bench trial, New Haven Superior Court Judge Karen Goodrow found that Yale failed to obtain both consent and informed consent before administering cow-based products to Aries.
The court credited expert testimony that:
- bovine-based fortifiers can increase the risk of NEC
- Human-based fortifiers were available as an alternative
- The hospital did not stock those alternatives
- The parents were never given the opportunity to choose
Judge Goodrow concluded that the parents were deprived of their legal right to make an informed decision regarding their child’s care.
Nearly $32 Million in Damages Awarded
The court awarded nearly $32 million in damages, including compensation for:
- Medical expenses
- Pain and suffering
- Loss of life
Yale’s Legal Arguments—and the Court’s Response
Following the verdict, Yale asked the court to reconsider or reduce the judgment. The hospital argued that:
- The ruling misapplied informed consent law
- Failure to disclose risks should not be treated as battery
- The link between cow-based products and NEC remains scientifically disputed
- Physicians should not be required to disclose risks debated within the medical community
Judge Goodrow rejected those arguments, emphasizing that informed consent is not satisfied by silence, assumptions, or institutional convenience.
Parents, the court held, are entitled to know:
- What is being given to their child
- What risks may exist
- What alternatives are available
This obligation is heightened when the patient is a vulnerable premature infant.
Broader Impact on Infant Formula and NEC Litigation
This case is part of a growing national reckoning. Hundreds of similar lawsuits are now pending in federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) against manufacturers of cow-based infant formula and fortifiers, alleging failures to warn about NEC risks.
Together, these cases may significantly reshape:
- How NICUs obtain parental consent
- How hospitals disclose risks and alternatives
- How infant formula manufacturers label and market their products
What Parents Should Know About Their Rights
For parents, the lesson is clear: you have the legal right to be fully informed and actively involved in decisions about your child’s medical care.
When hospitals or manufacturers fail to honor that right, the consequences can be devastating. Accountability in these cases is not about hindsight—it is about ensuring that families are never excluded from decisions that matter most.