Stephen Vogel

The NEC Litigation and the Connecticut Verdict That May Change NICU Consent Nationwide Some cases don’t just end with a verdict. They begin there. The law does not change all at once. Most of the time it changes the way tectonic plates shift—quietly, slowly, invisibly—until one day the ground gives way and what once seemed unthinkable becomes inevitable. Connecticut, unexpectedly and decisively, has become one of the places where the future arrived first. That is what is happening now in the national NEC infant formula litigation. In Hunte v. Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven Superior Court Judge Karen Goodrow entered judgment in the sum of $31,962,884.42 on December 12, 2025. Yale sought reconsideration. On January 29, 2026, Judge Goodrow denied Yale’s Motion to Reargue and Reconsider. The judgment stands, and Yale has appealed. This is not merely a “big verdict.” It is a warning shot across the bow of neonatal medicine, hospital administration, and corporate product marketing. And it may ultimately prove to be a turning point in how NICU feeding decisions are communicated, documented, and legally understood. The verdict matters not simply because of its magnitude, but because of its doctrinal framing: informed consent and battery, grounded in the most basic proposition of American tort law—patients and parents have the right to know what is being done to their bodies, and to make informed decisions about medical risk. THE CASE THAT CHANGED THE CONVERSATION: HUNTE v. YALE In Hunte, Judge Goodrow treated NEC not as an unavoidable tragedy. It treated it as the foreseeable outcome of a choice. And it treated that choice as one made without informed consent. The Court found that Yale failed to obtain informed consent before feeding bovine-based products to a premature infant, Aries-Reign Peterson, and that Yale’s obligation included discussing risks, benefits, and alternatives. The Court also credited evidence that a human-based fortifier alternative existed and was commercially available. This is not a minor factual dispute. It is a structural condemnation of how NICU feeding decisions have been normalized. And it has implications far beyond Yale. THE COURT REFUSED TO RETREAT After the verdict, Yale did what sophisticated defendants do. It filed a Motion to Reargue and Reconsider, challenging the Court’s legal framework, proximate cause reasoning, and damages. This is where many “historic” verdicts are softened or diluted. Not at trial, but in the procedural aftermath—where the defense reframes the case as legally dangerous, doctrinally flawed, or medically speculative. But on January 29, 2026, Judge Goodrow denied the motion. The denial did not read like a procedural shrug. It read like reinforcement. The Court refused to narrow its framing or to apologize for the judgment. To read the full article, click below; https://lnkd.in/est_8Rvt