A Superior Court judge has ruled that a Connecticut family has proven “by a preponderance of the evidence” that Yale New Haven Hospital fed a premature baby cow-based formula without parental consent and that it led to a condition “more likely than not” that resulted in the baby’s death.
The baby, Aries Reign-Peterson, was born extremely prematurely on Jan. 30, 2018 with a low birth weight that was about half the size for his gestational age, according to the ruling by Superior Court Judge Karen Goodrow.
Aries developed necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC, on Feb. 26, 2018 and died on April 18, 2018 as a result of complications due to NEC, the ruling said.
The judge wrote that NEC is generally an “inflammatory process of the intestines that can become a necrotizing process, causing tissue to die. NEC totalis, i.e., total loss of the entire intestine, can happen quickly and the chance of survival is slim. Aries developed NEC totalis shortly after the defendants fed Aries bovine-based formula.”
The defendants “fed Aries bovine-based products which, more likely than not, resulted in the development of NEC and Aries’ ultimate death due to complications from NEC,” the ruling says.
Aries “died as a result of respiratory failure and multi organ failure caused by NEC,” the judge wrote.
The defendants failed “to obtain any consent and failed to obtain informed consent regarding the use of cow-based fortifier and cow-based formula, and… the Estate of Aries Reign-Peterson, suffered damages as a result of the defendants’ failure to obtain consent and informed consent,” according to the ruling.
As a result, the judge ordered economic damages of reasonable medical and funeral expenses of $747,317.42 and loss of earning capacity $1,215,567, and non-economic damages of destruction of capacity to carry out and enjoy life’s activities, $10 million; pain and suffering, $10 million; and death itself, also $10 million, for a total of total of economic and non-economic damages of $31,962,884.42, according to the ruling.
Robert Hutchison, spokesperson for Yale New Haven Health, said, in response for a request for comment on the case, “Yale New Haven Health is committed to providing compassionate, individualized, and evidence-based care to families and babies before, during, and after pregnancy.”
“We remain steadfast in our belief that we acted consistently with our mission, vision, values, and legacy in providing care to this child,” Hutchison said. “Though we know it does not minimize the loss the family has experienced, we are disappointed in yesterday’s verdict and will be evaluating our options moving forward.”
The court said a trial on the case was held over eight days in May 2025.
The judge wrote that, when he was born at 27 weeks, four days gestation, Aries was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit at Yale New Haven Hospital, due to his prematurity and need for respiratory and nutritional support and he had severe abdominal issues, including vomiting, distention, bowel loops, abnormal films and he failed to pass stool.
The ruling notes that Yale New Haven Hospital is a “Level 4 NICU; it treats all aspects of surgery and life support for infants,” and “is the highest level NICU and cares for the sickest patients.”
“One or both of the parents were at the hospital daily from the time of Aries’ birth to the time of Aries’ death. The parents wanted to be involved in all treatment decisions and communicated their desire to the defendants,” the judge wrote.
The judge also wrote that an expert in the field of neonatal-perinatal medicine was one of the baby’s treating physicians in the NICU at Yale from Feb. 5, 2018 through Feb. 11, 2018, and from Feb. 19, 2018 to Feb. 25, 2018, and that “as of Feb. 25, 2018, Aries was receiving a diet of 50% Care30 (bovine-based formula) and a mixture of mother’s own milk with bovine-based fortifier.
“No consent was obtained from the parents to feed Aries bovine-based products. Informed consent was not obtained from the parents to feed Aries bovine-based products,” the judge wrote. The doctor “during his trial testimony, testified credibly that he had no memory of Aries, of treating Aries or of Aries’ parents,” the judge wrote in the findings.
However, the judge wrote, as a result of concern that inadequate growth could impact organ and brain development, the doctor had decided to add “human milk fortifier” to the mother’s breast milk, the judge also noting, “‘Human milk fortifier is a cow-based product and is not made from human milk, as the name implies” and that neither parent was told that a bovine-based fortifier would be used.
The risk of Aries developing NEC from the use of bovine-based products was never discussed with the parents, the judge said in the ruling. “The defendants did not discuss with the parents the risks and benefits of the use of bovine-based products. Although Aries’ parents wanted only mother’s own milk to be fed to Aries, the defendants did not opt to increase Aries’ in-take of mother’s own milk or pursue another alternative.”
Bovine-based products increase the risk for developing NEC, the judge wrote. The parents were “never told by the defendants that Aries would be fed formula. Had the parents been told about NEC and the increased risk of developing NEC from bovine-based products, they would not have agreed to Aries being fed the bovine-based fortifier or formula. The parents learned that Aries had been fed formula by reading the medical records after Aries’ death.”
“The fact that YNHH elected not to carry or use Prolacta (or any other human-based product) does not negate the fact that human-based fortifier was readily available at the time of Aries’ birth and treatment and were, therefore, an available alternative to bovine-based products. The defendants had a duty to discuss with the parents the content of the bovine-based products, and obtain informed consent, but failed to meet that duty,” the judge wrote.
The court finds that the “plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants committed [civil] battery by their failure to obtain any consent, and by their failure to obtain informed consent,” the ruling said.