FOLLOW US

Briefing Notes
• A food-poisoning claim that allegedly led to a rare mesenteric artery injury has been removed to federal court, setting up a science-heavy causation fight.
• CT reportedly showed a small SMAD two days after ER intake, followed by vascular surgery about six weeks later.
• Next concrete milepost: EDNC scheduling order and expert disclosure deadlines, which will frame the ensuing Daubert motions.

By SAMUEL LOPEZ
USA HERALD — August 24, 2025

A Virginia patron says a routine takeout order from a Raleigh Panda Express set off anything but a routine evening, alleging a rapid bout of food poisoning that escalated into a small superior mesenteric artery dissection—a rare vascular injury most people will thankfully never hear about outside a medical journal.

In a complaint first filed June 13 in Wake County Superior Court and now removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, plaintiff Charles Garrett alleges he ate chicken with noodles and mushrooms on June 16, 2022, and began vomiting within about forty minutes. By the next day, according to the filing, his symptoms had intensified—nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea—prompting a trip to Duke Raleigh Hospital’s emergency room.

A CT scan performed June 18 reportedly revealed the arterial problem, and Garrett says he spent several days hospitalized before undergoing vascular surgery approximately six weeks later. The complaint claims the artery “has not returned to its normal size,” and that the injury has left him with lasting harm and significant medical expenses.

Panda Express, which maintains that it did nothing wrong, removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, a procedural move that doesn’t resolve the merits but often reshapes the litigation map. Translation: we’re not yet arguing over who’s right; we’re agreeing on where the fight happens.

In federal court, expect a familiar rhythm—Rule 26 planning, discovery, expert disclosures, and then a hard pivot to Daubert, the admissibility test for expert testimony. This case won’t likely turn on a dramatic eyewitness but on methodical, expert-driven answers to two questions: what caused the acute gastrointestinal illness and, crucially, can a short-lived bout of food poisoning plausibly precipitate a mesenteric artery dissection in this patient under these circumstances?

That causal bridge is the heart of the lawsuit and the likely battleground for both sides’ medical experts. Plaintiffs in food-related injury cases usually frame claims under negligence and product liability theories—focusing on preparation, handling, storage, or contamination—and seek to tie the alleged breach to a specific, medically recognized injury. Defendants often counter by challenging the reliability of the medical link, highlighting timing gaps, alternative explanations, and risk factors. Here, the complaint’s tight chronology—meal; near-immediate vomiting; escalating symptoms; CT showing a small SMAD two days after the ER visit; surgery weeks later—will be offered as a coherent narrative of cause and effect.

The defense will probe every hinge in that narrative: What pathogens, if any, were identified? Are there known mechanisms by which a transient GI illness can trigger arterial wall injury? What do imaging, labs, and vascular notes actually show about onset and progression? And what non-foodborne factors might explain the dissection?

Expect discovery to dig into batch records, supplier documentation, temperature logs, and health-department inspection history for the restaurant; that’s the paper trail that can suggest either a system built to prevent contamination or one that occasionally lets risk slip through.

On damages, the medical records will matter most—imaging, surgical reports, and longitudinal treatment notes that either support the claim of a persistent, narrowed artery and ongoing impairment or complicate it. If the case survives dispositive motions, jurors won’t be asked whether Panda Express is “good” or “bad” in the abstract; they’ll be asked whether the plaintiff has met his burden, with competent expert testimony, to show that this particular meal more likely than not sparked a chain reaction that ended in arterial injury.

Procedurally, the removal signals a standard defense play: consolidate the dispute in a forum with more robust motion practice, especially around experts. Plaintiffs sometimes prefer state court timelines and evidentiary rhythms; defendants often prefer federal rigor on expert reliability. Neither forum decides truth; both decide thresholds.

As a legal analyst, I’ve seen more than a few food-borne injury cases transform into textbook Daubert showdowns where the last word isn’t a witness’s memory but a medical study’s methodology.

The parties and their counsel are set: Garrett is represented by Drew S. Sprague of Sprague Law PLLC; Panda Express is represented by David M. Fothergill and Megan Reilly-Dreas of McAngus Goudelock & Courie PLLC. The caption is Garrett v. Panda Express, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-00509, in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

As the docket gets organized, watch the scheduling order: expert disclosure dates are the canary in the coal mine for when the science fight turns from theoretical to tactical. However this shakes out, remember these are allegations in a live lawsuit; Panda Express has denied wrongdoing and is entitled to test every assertion. The court will decide what the jury hears. The jury, if it gets that far, will decide what the facts mean.