Panda Express Sued As Patron Alleges Meal Led to Artery Injury

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.