Update: Disney lawsuit over doctor's fatal allergic reaction
Key Takeaways
A New York physician died of anaphylactic shock after dining at a Disney World restaurant in October 2023. Her husband is now suing Disney World for negligence in her death.
Initially, Disney cited a clause in the Disney+ subscriber agreement, which requires all users of the digital streaming platform to arbitrate disputes with Disney. This clause was invoked by Disney even in the case of wrongful death.
Disney has recently walked back its stance in the lawsuit, saying they will allow the case to proceed to court.
The chilling story of the New York-based doctor who died of anaphylactic shock after dining at a Disney World restaurant in October 2023 is making the news again.
After originally attempting to limit the widower’s wrongful death lawsuit to arbitration due to the fine print of a Disney+ subscriber agreement, Disney’s legal team has changed its stance, saying they will allow the case to proceed to court because of “unique circumstances.”[]
What happened last year
In October 2023, Kanokporn Tangsuan, DO, went with her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, and his mother to Raglan Road Irish Pub & Restaurant in Disney Springs—part of the Walt Disney World resort. The group reportedly chose the restaurant because they believed it would be able to accommodate Dr. Tangsuan’s severe food allergies.
The restaurant assured Dr. Tangsuan and her family that the chef could make her meal allergen-free, even though some of the food lacked allergen-free flags used to designate safe items.[]
After finishing dinner, Dr. Tanguan collapsed to the floor while at Planet Hollywood. Despite self-administering an EpiPen, she died from anaphylaxis after being rushed to a nearby hospital. Elevated levels of nuts and dairy were found in her system.[]
About the lawsuit
Jeffery Piccolo is suing both Walt Disney Parks and Resorts and Raglan Road Irish Pub & Restaurant for negligence in the death of his wife. The lawsuit alleges that Raglan Road failed to train and educate its employees properly, that the employees failed to properly warn Dr. Tangsuan about allergens in her food, and that the employees failed to prepare the food without allergens as requested.
The Walt Disney World Resort’s policy on food allergies states:
"At Walt Disney World Resort, we take great pride in providing choice and variety for Guests with special dietary requests. You can request to speak with a chef or a special diets-trained Cast Member at most table-service and select quick-service restaurants. In most cases, no advance arrangements are needed. While restaurants make reasonable efforts to accommodate dietary requests, we cannot guarantee that they will be able to meet all requests."[]
Piccolo is seeking over $50,000 in damages for Dr. Tangsuan’s wrongful death. Brian Denney, an attorney for Piccolo, said that part of the reason Piccolo is bringing this case forward is to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.[][]
Disney finds a loophole
Earlier this month, Disney’s legal team had argued against the widower’s right to even bring the case forward to court.
The reason? In 2019, Piccolo had checked a box in the Disney+ subscriber agreement, which includes a section requiring all users to arbitrate disputes with Disney. Additionally, because Piccolo used the Disney website to buy tickets, they also claimed they should be protected from the lawsuit.[]
The story of Disney’s argument spread across social media and news outlets quickly, leading to Disney’s team issuing a statement to CNN on August 19, 2024, revising their stance. In it, Josh D’Amaro, the chairman of Disney Experiences, said, “At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss.”[]
But Brian Denney, Piccolo’s lawyer, also spoke with CNN, warning people that although this case has proceeded to court, those clauses still exist within many of Disney’s agreements.
When physicians become the patients
Every year in the US, people are impacted by food allergies. In fact, 33 million Americans have food allergies, and each year, 150 people in the US die from allergic reactions related to food.[]
It’s possible for physicians to miss signs and symptoms in themselves that they’d diagnose or educate patients about.
Studies have found that physicians face higher levels of burnout and experience greater risks of stress-related mental health problems when compared to others in their age group. Burnout and stress can exacerbate the symptoms of many conditions; it can also make it harder to take the time to treat them.[]
Writing on physician burnout for the American Academy of Family Physicians, Catherine Florio Pipas, MD, MPH, stated, "As I've coached physicians over the years, I have noticed that they often pride themselves on their “superhuman” status – able to work all day without the need to eat, sleep, or exercise. Denying physical needs is like a badge of honor in medicine, but it also contributes to an empty tank and negatively affects our ability to care for others."[]
Dr. Pipas also noted that there can be a stigma around seeking care in the medical field. Hospitals and healthcare facilities are often places where everyone is working long and intense hours. In this environment, it can be hard for physicians to recognize signs of their own stress and fatigue.
“The stigma around mental health and self-care often limits professionals from seeking help or even acknowledging they need a break. Additionally, despite having the knowledge and skills to diagnose and treat others, physicians do not effectively recognize burnout in themselves,” Dr. Pipas wrote.
What this means for you
The tragic death of a New York-based doctor dying from anaphylactic shock after dining at a Disney World restaurant has led her widower, Jeffrey Piccolo, to sue Disney and the restaurant for negligence. Initially, Disney's legal team sought to limit the case to arbitration due to a subscriber agreement clause. Fortunately, however, they recently agreed to let the case proceed to court—potentially due to the resulting public outrage against the billion-dollar company.