Skip to main content

Barron v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

Mo.September 12, 2017No. No. SC 96151Cited 14 times
Plaintiff WinAbbott Laboratories, Inc.$38,000,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Breckenridge, Draper, Fischer, Powell, Russell, Stith, Wilson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

Plaintiff Madison Schmidt prevailed on her failure-to-warn claim against Abbott Laboratories. A jury awarded her $15 million in compensatory damages and $23 million in punitive damages, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on appeal.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Madison Schmidt sued Abbott Laboratories after the company failed to properly warn her about serious risks associated with a medical product. Schmidt argued that Abbott knew about potential dangers but didn't adequately inform patients and healthcare providers about these risks, leading to her injury. **What the Court Decided** A jury sided with Schmidt, finding that Abbott Laboratories failed in its duty to provide proper warnings about their product's dangers. The court awarded Schmidt $38 million total: $15 million to compensate for her actual damages and injuries, plus an additional $23 million in punitive damages to punish Abbott for its conduct. When Abbott appealed, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the entire judgment. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case demonstrates that companies can be held accountable when they fail to warn about known dangers associated with their products. The large punitive damage award shows courts will impose significant financial penalties on companies that prioritize profits over safety. For workers in pharmaceutical and medical device companies, this ruling emphasizes the importance of proper safety warnings and transparent communication about product risks to protect both patients and the company from liability.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

O'Rear
S.D.N.Y.Oct 2024
Mixed Result
Muhammad
Ill. App. Ct.Jun 2022
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.