Doctor Dies From Allergic Reaction After Raglan Road Meal at Disney Springs

[RivShore]

Heard the tail end of a news story on that said the T&C's of the MDE app also force arbitration and they were surprised the lawyers did not use that, at least related, excuse for dismissal.

 

[loislane]

Heard the tail end of a news story on that said the T&C's of the MDE app also force arbitration and they were surprised the lawyers did not use that, at least related, excuse for dismissal.

I read the court documents and it does reference that as well.

 

[mistysue]

Sure, a doctor, someone who really understands the danger of eating contaminated food, would just eat anything and have no idea what they are eating, right?

Sure, let's side with the multibillionaire company vs the poor guest who died over allegedly contaminated food (which happens all the time, cross contamination is real and scary). let's wear them down, until the best of the best lawyers have time to come up with the next strategy to dodge this lawsuit.

You're saying this, and I've seen a number of people saying this - but the fact that she was a doctor only tells us she knows how extremely unlikely it is that anaphylaxis would result in death or a long term injury. We are talking about maybe 100 people dying out of every 200,000 who see the ER each year. Even with anaphylaxis rates skyrocketing, deaths are not. For the most part, anaphylaxis is an easily treated, yet scary, medical incident hundreds of thousands of people walk away from yearly.
I would not accuse her of doing this on purpose. With a story that includes unusual behaviors and gaps in time, it is a fair question whether someone involved may have been trying to get a free vacation in exchange for a shot. It would be irresponsible for a company being sued not to gather the background info to be sure they weren't being taken advantage of.

 

[DaviVascaino]

You're saying this, and I've seen a number of people saying this - but the fact that she was a doctor only tells us she knows how extremely unlikely it is that anaphylaxis would result in death or a long term injury. We are talking about maybe 100 people dying out of every 200,000 who see the ER each year. Even with anaphylaxis rates skyrocketing, deaths are not. For the most part, anaphylaxis is an easily treated, yet scary, medical incident hundreds of thousands of people walk away from yearly.
I would not accuse her of doing this on purpose. With a story that includes unusual behaviors and gaps in time, it is a fair question whether someone involved may have been trying to get a free vacation in exchange for a shot. It would be irresponsible for a company being sued not to gather the background info to be sure they weren't being taken advantage of.

You are talking about stuff you don't know.

I am a physician, and people can die of anaphylaxis even if they have an EpiPen available right away and administer it right away. Sometimes the reaction is so intense that even with all the care available, people might die. it happens.

To suggest (WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE) that a doctor would risk her life by eating contaminated food on purpose in order to sue Disney for a free vacation is appalling and disgusting to be honest.

I am out, of this thread, I don't want to get a warning or anything. Good luck.

 

[mistysue]

You are talking about stuff you don't know.

I am a physician, and people can die of anaphylaxis even if they have an EpiPen available right away and administer it right away. Sometimes the reaction is so intense that even with all the care available, people might die. it happens.

To suggest that a doctor would risk her life by eating contaminated food on purpose in order to sue Disney for a free vacation is appalling and disgusting to be honest.

I am out, of this thread, I don't want to get a warning or anything. Good luck.

Nope, making the comment because I'm very in touch with how likely death is as a result. Yes, it is a possibility. Is it likely? No.

ETA - people do it for youtube videos and laughs among friends. I wouldn't call it smart, but it's naive to suggest nobody would do it for money.

 

[tom1944]

Don’t they have to prove that the only place they ate was at the restaurant accused?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Don’t they have to prove that the only place they ate was at the restaurant accused?

Not necessarily. You have to trace all their steps before and after to determine the most likely cause. This is the same with food poisoning, many people assume they got it at X but that's just someone assuming rather than a health department investigation shedding light and we're often incorrect as to why and where we got sick.

It's much easier to look at certain allergies for this shellfish for example would probably be able to determine more easily if the individuals didn't patronize or go anywhere else before nor after but nut allergies especially it can be found all over. The woman in question did go shopping after dinner and I'm not sure what she did prior to the dinner.

You really just want the "right" party to be held accountable...and FWIW that doesn't absolve the individual. One can contribute to their own reaction depending on what one does, that's part of the investigation too. The cause of death was listed as accidental.

 

[marikujawa]

I expect it's largely a tactic to extend time for a more logical defense (or request for severance or dismissal). That requires investigation which requires time. I'm non lawyer but my understanding is there are timelines involved. Disney may have been up against a deadline to file a response -- so they did just that, a response that will buy them a little more time for the investigation.

It’s more likely that Disney did not want to waive its right to arbitration by failing to raise it in a timely manner.

 

[jk2006]

Very sad for family that waiter didn’t comprehend seriousness of situation.

My opinion only….just a matter of time that Disney is done making accommodations for allergies and it is all “dine at your own risk”

 

[Dead2009]

I hope I never break a limb or have some sort of attack because if that happens, me being on Disney+ prevents me from suing.

 

[mkatsy]

There are discrepancies in the plaintiff’s story. The lawsuit states that they chose to eat at this restaurant because they have high standards and only patronized it because of the Disney name. The deceased doctor’s father gave an interview and stated that he dropped his daughter and her husband off at the airport and received a phone call that evening that she had died. There is a video of the doctor, her husband, and the mother in law drinking at Howl at the Moon on I-Drive the night before. The doctor has an open beverage. This is a very risky move for someone with a nut allergy, as many products in a bar contain nuts. It also completely negates the plaintiff’s assertion that they meticulously managed her allergy. No they didn’t … they took risks when it suited them. Also, Do they have a Time Machine, or is grandpa confused?

 

[kathyk2]

Very sad for family that waiter didn’t comprehend seriousness of situation.

My opinion only….just a matter of time that Disney is done making accommodations for allergies and it is all “dine at your own risk”

Food allergies are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Disney would be foolish to turn down potential customers and their families

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Not necessarily. You have to trace all their steps before and after to determine the most likely cause. This is the same with food poisoning, many people assume they got it at X but that's just someone assuming rather than a health department investigation shedding light and we're often incorrect as to why and where we got sick.

It's much easier to look at certain allergies for this shellfish for example would probably be able to determine more easily if the individuals didn't patronize or go anywhere else before nor after but nut allergies especially it can be found all over. The woman in question did go shopping after dinner and I'm not sure what she did prior to the dinner.

You really just want the "right" party to be held accountable...and FWIW that doesn't absolve the individual. One can contribute to their own reaction depending on what one does, that's part of the investigation too. The cause of death was listed as accidental.

When I had true food poisoning (not what many people call food poisoning), diagnosed in a hospital, they were able to tell exactly what poisoned me. The autopsy should be able to point them in the direction they need to go.

 

[mistysue]

Not necessarily. You have to trace all their steps before and after to determine the most likely cause. This is the same with food poisoning, many people assume they got it at X but that's just someone assuming rather than a health department investigation shedding light and we're often incorrect as to why and where we got sick.

It's much easier to look at certain allergies for this shellfish for example would probably be able to determine more easily if the individuals didn't patronize or go anywhere else before nor after but nut allergies especially it can be found all over. The woman in question did go shopping after dinner and I'm not sure what she did prior to the dinner.

You really just want the "right" party to be held accountable...and FWIW that doesn't absolve the individual. One can contribute to their own reaction depending on what one does, that's part of the investigation too. The cause of death was listed as accidental.

There are discrepancies in the plaintiff’s story. The lawsuit states that they chose to eat at this restaurant because they have high standards and only patronized it because of the Disney name. The deceased doctor’s father gave an interview and stated that he dropped his daughter and her husband off at the airport and received a phone call that evening that she had died. There is a video of the doctor, her husband, and the mother in law drinking at Howl at the Moon on I-Drive the night before. The doctor has an open beverage. This is a very risky move for someone with a nut allergy, as many products in a bar contain nuts. It also completely negates the plaintiff’s assertion that they meticulously managed her allergy. No they didn’t … they took risks when it suited them. Also, Do they have a Time Machine, or is grandpa confused?

I know you both brought up nut allergies- But when you add in having a dairy allergy... There is exactly one place I know of in Disney springs that serves food or drink and does not have milk products. (As a person who's been managing milk allergies for years) You've even got places labeling menu items vegan who will openly tell you that they are likely to contain traces of milk.

And milk is common in alcoholic drinks in addition to nearly every bar snack. It's really hard to show that a person has not done anything else involving food or drink where milk contact was not a risk, let alone likely.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

When I had true food poisoning (not what many people call food poisoning), diagnosed in a hospital, they were able to tell exactly what poisoned me. The autopsy should be able to point them in the direction they need to go.

I also have had food poisoning and went to the hospital for it however the hospital is about getting treatment, the health department and FDA is about tracing what caused it. The hospital could diagnose me with presumed staph but I could deduce based on my symptoms and the rapid onset as well as what my then boyfriend now husband had eaten as well on what was the most likely cause.

But my comment about food poisoning was about having an investigation occur where they figure out where someone got sick or if it was an ingredient that was contaminated. People can't assume that this individual got the reaction they did at Raglan Rd without an investigation done to trace exactly where her steps were especially in the case of a death and a lawsuit.

Last I heard, it was mentioned in this thread, about the autopsy was that there was elevated levels of dairy and nuts, 7 different kinds, was mentioned but that because the test was done in an autopsy the results could not be verified. But that doesn't tell them where which is the key part of the lawsuit, the whole reason for the lawsuit actually.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

I also have had food poisoning and went to the hospital for it however the hospital is about getting treatment, the health department and FDA is about tracing what caused it. The hospital could diagnose me with presumed staph but I could deduce based on my symptoms and the rapid onset as well as what my then boyfriend now husband had eaten as well on what was the most likely cause.

But my comment about food poisoning was about having an investigation occur where they figure out where someone got sick or if it was an ingredient that was contaminated. People can't assume that this individual got the reaction they did at Raglan Rd without an investigation done to trace exactly where her steps were especially in the case of a death and a lawsuit.

Last I heard, it was mentioned in this thread, about the autopsy was that there was elevated levels of dairy and nuts, 7 different kinds, was mentioned but that because the test was done in an autopsy the results could not be verified. But that doesn't tell them where which is the key part of the lawsuit, the whole reason for the lawsuit actually.

That wasn't my experience. I was in the hospital 2 days. First they stabilized me, then left me there for observation. Before I was released, they came in to tell me what poisoned me. They knew exactly what it was. I'm sure they passed that information on to the health department, but they diagnosed what it was.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That wasn't my experience. I was in the hospital 2 days. First they stabilized me, then left me there for observation. Before I was released, they came in to tell me what poisoned me. They knew exactly what it was. I'm sure they passed that information on to the health department, but they diagnosed what it was.

If I had to guess they were using what information they could from you or others around you to narrow down what they presumed was the most likely cause. Even with me I don't have the cause just the most likely cause and a diagnosis of staph. They may have advised the health department what they thought it was but I am unaware of any such medical hospital setting outside of poisoning like antifreeze and the like being able to pinpoint exactly what food with 100% absoluteness that its what got you sick with just going to them. Things like known recalls and the like may help out like the applesauce pouches that after investigation were found to be the culprit but it took figuring out that the likely source was lead and chromium in tainted cinnamon used in those pouches. Or known outbreaks but it still takes weeding out if there was an unrelated to those outbreaks incident. I mentioned that lawsuit a page or two back from my local area and they initially had people calling in stating they had gotten sick from the restaurant in a wider range of dates than it ended up being, so if they were sick, and they really might have been, it wasn't due to the ex-employee tampering with it.

I'm not doubting what they told you, just that for a hospital to be able to pinpoint without any investigation and testing of the food item that it caused the infection seems out of their prevue and capabilities.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

If I had to guess they were using what information they could from you or others around you to narrow down what they presumed was the most likely cause. Even with me I don't have the cause just the most likely cause and a diagnosis of staph. They may have advised the health department what they thought it was but I am unaware of any such medical hospital setting outside of poisoning like antifreeze and the like being able to pinpoint exactly what food with 100% absoluteness that its what got you sick with just going to them. Things like known recalls and the like may help out like the applesauce pouches that after investigation were found to be the culprit but it took figuring out that the likely source was lead and chromium in tainted cinnamon used in those pouches. Or known outbreaks but it still takes weeding out if there was an unrelated to those outbreaks incident. I mentioned that lawsuit a page or two back from my local area and they initially had people calling in stating they had gotten sick from the restaurant in a wider range of dates than it ended up being, so if they were sick, and they really might have been, it wasn't due to the ex-employee tampering with it.

I'm not doubting what they told you, just that for a hospital to be able to pinpoint without any investigation and testing of the food item that it caused the infection seems out of their prevue and capabilities.

They did test the food. They tested the food I digested. FWIW, I know they were right. This particular food was pulled from the market a couple weeks later, because many people had gotten true food poisoning from it.

There's no point in continuing to argue about this. I'll trust the doctor who specifically said they did lab tests to determine what it was.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

They did test the food. They tested the food I digested. FWIW, I know they were right. This particular food was pulled from the market a couple weeks later, because many people had gotten true food poisoning from it.

There's no point in continuing to argue about this. I'll trust the doctor who specifically said they did lab tests to determine what it was.

I wasn't arguing with you about it but okay. My comment was just about investigating relevant to the lawsuit. Sorry to have mentioned food poisoning but enjoy your evening

 

[mistysue]

Truthfully, I have never heard of them being able to test someone's blood to tell what allergens they had ingested. It makes me really curious because I've heard people say that they tested and found antibodies- But that is literally how you do a blood test to find out if someone's allergic, not to find out what they've eaten. We have been in the emergency room many times with mystery reactions to "we're not sure which allergen" and never had the option of testing for what it was. This is actually a fairly common problem for people who have multiple food allergies- that they don't know what they reacted to.

It's not an uncommon question in groups for food allergies, are people to be seeking a lab who will do testing on a sample of food and to not be able to find a lab that is actively testing at that time. But in order to do the test at all, you need an uneaten sample, which then means that if the person was reacting to cross-contact, that sample might not have the same cross contact issues as the food that was eaten. This is why when people try to sell those little tester necklaces to test for cross contact in your food, people respond that they don't work unless you're testing the same sample you're about to eat.