Panda Express Sued As Patron Alleges Meal Led to Artery Injury

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?