As another legal type, I second what Jake said.  Showing damages is
critical. For ex. Jay's client with the twins might be able to show
damages, if I recall the facts right. . But if a mom is able to
breastfeed with no problems, and baby is not adversely impacted, there
are no damages.  Yes, there may be issues that do not show up right
away--allergies, etc.--but then mom is going to have to show a
connection, and convincing a judge or jury of that connection will likely
be difficult given societal attitudes that ABM is just as good as
breastmilk. (Hey, but some of you out there could make some money being
expert witnesses. ;-) ).

I've seen situations here and on other lists that appeared to be decent
cases in terms of litigation.  Ex.  Mom put on an antibiotic for dad's
UTI.  ER doc. told  her not to BF for two weeks.  Older infant  refused
to go back to breast.  Put on ABM and developed problems--allergies, ear
infection, etc. Mom researches further; finds out the drug was compatible
with BF.   (Upshot--she didn't sue, but wrote to hosp, which wrote back
and said ER doc. was being sent to a BF class.  She also tried to
relactate.)  I'm sure many of you have seem more egregious cases.

Education is of course,  preferable to lawsuits.

Melissa Kirsch, J.D., LLLL