Oct 30 (Reuters) - A lawyer for a Missouri mother on

Wednesday asked a jury to make Abbott and Reckitt's

Mead Johnson pay a total of more than $6 billion in the

latest trial over claims that the companies' formulas for

premature babies caused a severe intestinal illness.

Litigation over the formulas has raised alarm from doctors

who say that it could threaten the formulas' availability or

affect medical decisions. CEOs for both Reckitt and Abbott have

said the companies may exit the premature formula market.

"Companies have to clearly and unambiguously tell us the

truth about their products, especially those intended for the

smallest and most vulnerable human beings on the planet," Tim

Cronin, representing Elizabeth Whitfield and her son Kaine, told

the jury in St. Louis, Missouri, in his closing argument at the

end of a five-week trial.

Cronin said the companies failed to warn that their

premature baby formulas could cause necrotizing enterocolitis,

and that Kaine got the disease as a result of receiving the

formula in the newborn intensive care unit at St. Louis

Children's Hospital in 2017, leaving him with lifelong health

and developmental problems.

Cronin asked the jury to award Kaine nearly $277 million in

compensatory damages for his past and future healthcare costs,

lost earning potential and pain and suffering. He also urged

them to order Abbott to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, and

Mead Johnson to pay $1 billion, based on the companies' sizes.

The verdict Whitfield is seeking would be one of the largest

in U.S. history. Even if the jury awards it, however, it could

be reduced on appeal for a number of reasons, including that the

U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that punitive damages should

generally be less than 10 times compensatory damages.

While the hospital was also a defendant in the case, Cronin

did not ask the jurors to award any damages against it, though

he said they were free to do so.

Reuters watched the closing argument through Courtroom View

Network.

Lawyers for the defendants are expected to present their

closing arguments later in the day.

Both companies have said that, while mother's and donated

human milk is widely understood to protect against necrotizing

enterocolitis, formula does not cause it.

Whitfield's case is one of close to 1,000 in courts around

the United States alleging that Abbott's and Mead's specialized

formulas used by hospitals to feed premature babies cause the

illness. Two cases that previously went to trial resulted in

verdicts of $60 million against Mead and $495 million against

Abbott.

Following the earlier verdicts, U.S. regulatory agencies and

a working group of scientists convened by the National

Institutes of Health have said current evidence does not support

the hypothesis that formula causes necrotizing enterocolitis.

Abbott and Mead were not allowed to present those statements to

the jury in the current trial.

Abbott's lead trial lawyer, Kirkland & Ellis partner James

Hurst, will not be allowed to present his closing argument for

the company after Missouri Circuit Court Judge Michael Noble

last week found he had acted in "bad faith" during the trial,

including by trying to bring in testimony that the judge had

already ruled was not allowed.

An Abbott spokesperson in a statement said that Hurst "is a

terrific trial lawyer and has acted professionally, ethically

and in good faith throughout the case."