Panda Express Sued As Patron Alleges Meal Led to Artery Injury

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?