Loading
Food and Beverage
8 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Infectious Diseases, Microbiology, Food Safety, Restaurants, Physician
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
New Hampshire State
A February 2014 dinner at an Applebee’s restaurant in New Hampshire led to a strict products liability lawsuit after Brandon Stachulski contracted non-typhoidal salmonella. Stachulski ate a well-done hamburger at approximately 8:00 p.m. on February 17, 2014, and became violently ill at approximately 2:45 a.m. the next day. His brother-in-law, who also ordered a hamburger, later experienced similar gastrointestinal symptoms. Stachulski claimed that the restaurant meal caused his infection, while Apple New England, LLC identified other possible sources, including food consumed elsewhere and contact with a pet lizard.
The dispute proceeded to a three-day jury trial in Rockingham County Superior Court. Two infectious-disease physicians presented opposing opinions about medical causation, and the jury returned a general verdict for Stachulski in the amount of $750,000. Apple New England appealed the admission of the plaintiff’s medical testimony, the sufficiency of the causation evidence, the damages instructions, statements by counsel, and the denial of remittitur. On July 18, 2018, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in Stachulski v. Apple New England, LLC, 171 N.H. 158, 191 A.3d 1231 (2018).
At approximately 8:00 p.m., Brandon Stachulski ate a well-done hamburger at an Applebee’s restaurant operated by Apple New England. His wife and brother-in-law were with him, and his brother-in-law also ordered a hamburger. Stachulski later identified the meal as the source of the salmonella infection underlying his strict products liability claim.
Stachulski became violently ill at approximately 2:45 a.m., about six hours and 45 minutes after eating the hamburger. His brother-in-law also developed gastrointestinal symptoms following the restaurant visit, while Stachulski’s wife did not become ill. The brother-in-law’s similar symptoms formed part of the evidence concerning a possible common food exposure, although the reported decision does not state that he received a confirmed salmonella diagnosis.
The parties disputed whether the timing of Stachulski’s illness supported his medical causation theory. Stachulski’s expert physician considered the onset of symptoms consistent with the reported incubation period for salmonella, while Apple New England argued that the available evidence did not reliably identify the restaurant meal as the source.
Medical testing confirmed that Stachulski had contracted non-typhoidal salmonella. The test established the nature of the infection but did not identify where or how he encountered the bacteria. Stachulski attributed the illness to the Applebee’s hamburger, while Apple New England disputed that conclusion.
The defense identified other possible sources, including food Stachulski consumed outside the restaurant and contact with his pet lizard. Apple New England argued that contact with the lizard provided another possible explanation for the infection because reptiles may carry salmonella without appearing ill. Evidence was also presented that Stachulski’s wife and daughter had contact with the lizard but did not become sick.
Apple New England moved to exclude Dr. Seth D. Rosenbaum’s testimony, arguing that his causation opinion lacked sufficient factual support and a reliably applied method. The Superior Court allowed him to testify after a pretrial hearing. Rosenbaum used differential etiology to assess the restaurant meal, symptom timing, the brother-in-law’s illness, food eaten at home, and contact with Stachulski’s pet lizard. He concluded that the hamburger more likely than not caused the infection, while defense physician Dr. Sigal Yawetz identified other possible sources.
The jury also reviewed more than 700 pages of medical records and approximately $43,000 in documented medical expenses. Stachulski testified about continuing gastrointestinal symptoms, bowel-control problems, medication side effects, dietary restrictions, and limits on his social and recreational activities.
After the three-day trial, the jury returned a general verdict in Stachulski’s favor and awarded him $750,000. Because the verdict was general, it did not assign separate amounts to medical expenses, pain and suffering, future damages, or loss of enjoyment of life.
Apple New England asked the Superior Court to reduce the award through remittitur. The trial court denied the request, leaving the full verdict in place.
Apple New England appealed the judgment to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, where the case received docket number 2016-0692. The company challenged the admission of Rosenbaum’s testimony and argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the hamburger caused the infection.
The appeal also contested the jury instructions addressing future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Apple New England further raised objections to statements made by Stachulski’s counsel and argued that the $750,000 award was excessive.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 14, 2017. The causation dispute required the court to examine whether Rosenbaum’s differential-etiology analysis satisfied the state’s standards for medical opinion testimony.
The court also considered whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, whether the damages instructions accurately stated New Hampshire law, and whether the trial judge should have reduced the award.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and upheld the admission of Dr. Rosenbaum’s testimony. It found that Rosenbaum’s differential-etiology analysis adequately considered other possible causes and that the diagnosis, symptom timing, brother-in-law’s illness, household evidence, and other trial evidence permitted the jury to find that the hamburger caused the infection.
The court also approved the instructions on future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, including damages for temporary restrictions. It rejected Apple New England’s remaining arguments, found that the $750,000 general verdict was not manifestly excessive, and affirmed the denial of remittitur.
Court:
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case Name:
Stachulski v. Apple New England, LLC
Foodborne Illness
Food microbiology
Food Poisoning
Salmonella
Product Safety
Chain Restaurants
Medical Records Review
A February 2014 dinner at an Applebee’s restaurant in New Hampshire led to a strict products liability lawsuit after Brandon Stachulski contracted non-typhoidal salmonella. Stachulski ate a well-done hamburger at approximately 8:00 p.m. on February 17, 2014, and became violently ill at approximately 2:45 a.m. the next day. His brother-in-law, who also ordered a hamburger, later experienced similar gastrointestinal symptoms. Stachulski claimed that the restaurant meal caused his infection, while Apple New England, LLC identified other possible sources, including food consumed elsewhere and contact with a pet lizard.
The dispute proceeded to a three-day jury trial in Rockingham County Superior Court. Two infectious-disease physicians presented opposing opinions about medical causation, and the jury returned a general verdict for Stachulski in the amount of $750,000. Apple New England appealed the admission of the plaintiff’s medical testimony, the sufficiency of the causation evidence, the damages instructions, statements by counsel, and the denial of remittitur. On July 18, 2018, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in Stachulski v. Apple New England, LLC, 171 N.H. 158, 191 A.3d 1231 (2018).
At approximately 8:00 p.m., Brandon Stachulski ate a well-done hamburger at an Applebee’s restaurant operated by Apple New England. His wife and brother-in-law were with him, and his brother-in-law also ordered a hamburger. Stachulski later identified the meal as the source of the salmonella infection underlying his strict products liability claim.
Stachulski became violently ill at approximately 2:45 a.m., about six hours and 45 minutes after eating the hamburger. His brother-in-law also developed gastrointestinal symptoms following the restaurant visit, while Stachulski’s wife did not become ill. The brother-in-law’s similar symptoms formed part of the evidence concerning a possible common food exposure, although the reported decision does not state that he received a confirmed salmonella diagnosis.
The parties disputed whether the timing of Stachulski’s illness supported his medical causation theory. Stachulski’s expert physician considered the onset of symptoms consistent with the reported incubation period for salmonella, while Apple New England argued that the available evidence did not reliably identify the restaurant meal as the source.
Medical testing confirmed that Stachulski had contracted non-typhoidal salmonella. The test established the nature of the infection but did not identify where or how he encountered the bacteria. Stachulski attributed the illness to the Applebee’s hamburger, while Apple New England disputed that conclusion.
The defense identified other possible sources, including food Stachulski consumed outside the restaurant and contact with his pet lizard. Apple New England argued that contact with the lizard provided another possible explanation for the infection because reptiles may carry salmonella without appearing ill. Evidence was also presented that Stachulski’s wife and daughter had contact with the lizard but did not become sick.
Apple New England moved to exclude Dr. Seth D. Rosenbaum’s testimony, arguing that his causation opinion lacked sufficient factual support and a reliably applied method. The Superior Court allowed him to testify after a pretrial hearing. Rosenbaum used differential etiology to assess the restaurant meal, symptom timing, the brother-in-law’s illness, food eaten at home, and contact with Stachulski’s pet lizard. He concluded that the hamburger more likely than not caused the infection, while defense physician Dr. Sigal Yawetz identified other possible sources.
The jury also reviewed more than 700 pages of medical records and approximately $43,000 in documented medical expenses. Stachulski testified about continuing gastrointestinal symptoms, bowel-control problems, medication side effects, dietary restrictions, and limits on his social and recreational activities.
After the three-day trial, the jury returned a general verdict in Stachulski’s favor and awarded him $750,000. Because the verdict was general, it did not assign separate amounts to medical expenses, pain and suffering, future damages, or loss of enjoyment of life.
Apple New England asked the Superior Court to reduce the award through remittitur. The trial court denied the request, leaving the full verdict in place.
Apple New England appealed the judgment to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, where the case received docket number 2016-0692. The company challenged the admission of Rosenbaum’s testimony and argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the hamburger caused the infection.
The appeal also contested the jury instructions addressing future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Apple New England further raised objections to statements made by Stachulski’s counsel and argued that the $750,000 award was excessive.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 14, 2017. The causation dispute required the court to examine whether Rosenbaum’s differential-etiology analysis satisfied the state’s standards for medical opinion testimony.
The court also considered whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, whether the damages instructions accurately stated New Hampshire law, and whether the trial judge should have reduced the award.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and upheld the admission of Dr. Rosenbaum’s testimony. It found that Rosenbaum’s differential-etiology analysis adequately considered other possible causes and that the diagnosis, symptom timing, brother-in-law’s illness, household evidence, and other trial evidence permitted the jury to find that the hamburger caused the infection.
The court also approved the instructions on future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, including damages for temporary restrictions. It rejected Apple New England’s remaining arguments, found that the $750,000 general verdict was not manifestly excessive, and affirmed the denial of remittitur.
Infectious-Disease Physician Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff and Defense)
Plaintiff: Dr. Rosenbaum testified for Stachulski and used differential etiology to evaluate possible sources of the salmonella infection. After considering the restaurant meal, other food exposures, the symptom timeline, the brother-in-law’s illness, and contact with the pet lizard, he concluded that the hamburger more likely than not caused the infection.
Defense: Dr. Yawetz testified for Apple New England and disagreed with Rosenbaum’s causation opinion. She addressed alternative exposure sources and questioned whether the available evidence could reliably identify the restaurant meal as the source of the bacteria.
Food Microbiology Expert Witness
A food microbiology expert may be retained in a foodborne illness case to examine how a pathogen can contaminate food, survive during preparation, and cause infection after consumption. Depending on the available evidence, the expert may assess laboratory findings, incubation periods, contamination pathways, food-storage conditions, and whether the suspected food is consistent with the identified organism.
Product Safety Expert Witness
A product safety expert may be retained in restaurant or food-product litigation to evaluate procedures intended to prevent unsafe food from reaching consumers. The analysis may address food handling, cooking controls, storage practices, sanitation procedures, employee instructions, and compliance with applicable safety protocols.
Circumstantial Evidence in Foodborne Illness Claims
In this case, the absence of direct testing of the hamburger did not prevent the causation issue from reaching the jury. The jury considered the medical diagnosis, symptom timing, the brother-in-law’s similar illness, household circumstances, alternative exposure theories, and the physicians’ testimony. In Stachulski’s case, the jury reviewed the confirmed diagnosis, the brother-in-law’s similar symptoms, household evidence, and the opinions of two infectious-disease physicians.
Differential Etiology in Salmonella Causation Analysis
Differential etiology compares possible causes through the patient’s exposure history, incubation period, records, symptoms, test results, and competing explanations. Rosenbaum considered the restaurant meal, food eaten at home, and contact with the pet lizard before identifying the hamburger as the most likely source, while Yawetz disagreed with his conclusion.
Conflicting Medical Opinions and Jury Review
A disagreement between physicians does not automatically require either opinion to be excluded. Once the trial judge determines that the testimony meets the applicable reliability standard, the parties may challenge the analysis through cross-examination and contrary evidence, and the jury decides how much weight to give each opinion.
Future Pain and Suffering Under New Hampshire Law
Future pain-and-suffering damages must rest on probable harm rather than speculation and may be supported by medical records, ongoing symptoms, treatment, and physician testimony. Stachulski presented evidence of continuing gastrointestinal problems, which allowed the jury to consider probable future effects.
Loss-of-Enjoyment Damages in New Hampshire
Loss-of-enjoyment damages may compensate for temporary or permanent limits on ordinary activities, including recreation, eating habits, social events, and daily routines. Stachulski described restrictions on hiking, food and beverage choices, and activities that required him to remain near a restroom, which the jury considered in the general damages award.
The trial presented the jury with two competing explanations for Brandon Stachulski’s salmonella infection. Stachulski relied on the timing of his illness, his brother-in-law’s similar symptoms, the confirmed diagnosis, household evidence, and Dr. Rosenbaum’s differential-etiology analysis. Apple New England relied on other possible food exposures, contact with a pet lizard, and Dr. Yawetz’s disagreement with the plaintiff’s causation theory.
The jury found for Stachulski and awarded him $750,000 in a general verdict. Apple New England challenged the medical testimony, causation evidence, damages instructions, statements by counsel, verdict amount, and denial of remittitur. On July 18, 2018, the New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected those challenges and affirmed the judgment.
What Food Did Brandon Stachulski Claim Caused His Salmonella Infection?
Stachulski claimed that a well-done hamburger served at an Applebee’s restaurant caused the infection. He ate the hamburger at approximately 8:00 p.m. on February 17, 2014, and became violently ill at approximately 2:45 a.m. the next day.
Did Another Diner Become Sick After the Applebee’s Meal?
Yes. Stachulski’s brother-in-law also ate a hamburger and later developed similar gastrointestinal symptoms. The reported decision does not state that the brother-in-law received a confirmed salmonella diagnosis.
Was the Applebee’s Hamburger Tested for Salmonella?
The Supreme Court’s decision does not report laboratory testing of the hamburger. The causation case instead relied on medical testing, the timing of symptoms, the brother-in-law’s illness, household evidence, alternative exposure theories, and physician testimony.
Why Was Stachulski’s Pet Lizard Discussed at Trial?
Apple New England identified contact with the pet lizard as another possible source because reptiles may carry salmonella. Stachulski relied in part on evidence that his wife and daughter also had contact with the animal but did not become ill.
What Is Differential Etiology?
Differential etiology is a medical method used to compare possible causes of a patient’s condition. Dr. Rosenbaum applied that process to the restaurant meal, other foods, the symptom timeline, household circumstances, and possible contact with the pet lizard.
What Was the Final Ruling in Stachulski v. Apple New England?
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the $750,000 judgment on July 18, 2018. It upheld the admission of the plaintiff’s medical causation testimony, found sufficient evidence to support the verdict, approved the challenged damages instructions, and affirmed the denial of remittitur.
Infectious-Disease Physician Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff and Defense)
Plaintiff: Dr. Rosenbaum testified for Stachulski and used differential etiology to evaluate possible sources of the salmonella infection. After considering the restaurant meal, other food exposures, the symptom timeline, the brother-in-law’s illness, and contact with the pet lizard, he concluded that the hamburger more likely than not caused the infection.
Defense: Dr. Yawetz testified for Apple New England and disagreed with Rosenbaum’s causation opinion. She addressed alternative exposure sources and questioned whether the available evidence could reliably identify the restaurant meal as the source of the bacteria.
Food Microbiology Expert Witness
A food microbiology expert may be retained in a foodborne illness case to examine how a pathogen can contaminate food, survive during preparation, and cause infection after consumption. Depending on the available evidence, the expert may assess laboratory findings, incubation periods, contamination pathways, food-storage conditions, and whether the suspected food is consistent with the identified organism.
Product Safety Expert Witness
A product safety expert may be retained in restaurant or food-product litigation to evaluate procedures intended to prevent unsafe food from reaching consumers. The analysis may address food handling, cooking controls, storage practices, sanitation procedures, employee instructions, and compliance with applicable safety protocols.
Circumstantial Evidence in Foodborne Illness Claims
In this case, the absence of direct testing of the hamburger did not prevent the causation issue from reaching the jury. The jury considered the medical diagnosis, symptom timing, the brother-in-law’s similar illness, household circumstances, alternative exposure theories, and the physicians’ testimony. In Stachulski’s case, the jury reviewed the confirmed diagnosis, the brother-in-law’s similar symptoms, household evidence, and the opinions of two infectious-disease physicians.
Differential Etiology in Salmonella Causation Analysis
Differential etiology compares possible causes through the patient’s exposure history, incubation period, records, symptoms, test results, and competing explanations. Rosenbaum considered the restaurant meal, food eaten at home, and contact with the pet lizard before identifying the hamburger as the most likely source, while Yawetz disagreed with his conclusion.
Conflicting Medical Opinions and Jury Review
A disagreement between physicians does not automatically require either opinion to be excluded. Once the trial judge determines that the testimony meets the applicable reliability standard, the parties may challenge the analysis through cross-examination and contrary evidence, and the jury decides how much weight to give each opinion.
Future Pain and Suffering Under New Hampshire Law
Future pain-and-suffering damages must rest on probable harm rather than speculation and may be supported by medical records, ongoing symptoms, treatment, and physician testimony. Stachulski presented evidence of continuing gastrointestinal problems, which allowed the jury to consider probable future effects.
Loss-of-Enjoyment Damages in New Hampshire
Loss-of-enjoyment damages may compensate for temporary or permanent limits on ordinary activities, including recreation, eating habits, social events, and daily routines. Stachulski described restrictions on hiking, food and beverage choices, and activities that required him to remain near a restroom, which the jury considered in the general damages award.
The trial presented the jury with two competing explanations for Brandon Stachulski’s salmonella infection. Stachulski relied on the timing of his illness, his brother-in-law’s similar symptoms, the confirmed diagnosis, household evidence, and Dr. Rosenbaum’s differential-etiology analysis. Apple New England relied on other possible food exposures, contact with a pet lizard, and Dr. Yawetz’s disagreement with the plaintiff’s causation theory.
The jury found for Stachulski and awarded him $750,000 in a general verdict. Apple New England challenged the medical testimony, causation evidence, damages instructions, statements by counsel, verdict amount, and denial of remittitur. On July 18, 2018, the New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected those challenges and affirmed the judgment.
What Food Did Brandon Stachulski Claim Caused His Salmonella Infection?
Stachulski claimed that a well-done hamburger served at an Applebee’s restaurant caused the infection. He ate the hamburger at approximately 8:00 p.m. on February 17, 2014, and became violently ill at approximately 2:45 a.m. the next day.
Did Another Diner Become Sick After the Applebee’s Meal?
Yes. Stachulski’s brother-in-law also ate a hamburger and later developed similar gastrointestinal symptoms. The reported decision does not state that the brother-in-law received a confirmed salmonella diagnosis.
Was the Applebee’s Hamburger Tested for Salmonella?
The Supreme Court’s decision does not report laboratory testing of the hamburger. The causation case instead relied on medical testing, the timing of symptoms, the brother-in-law’s illness, household evidence, alternative exposure theories, and physician testimony.
Why Was Stachulski’s Pet Lizard Discussed at Trial?
Apple New England identified contact with the pet lizard as another possible source because reptiles may carry salmonella. Stachulski relied in part on evidence that his wife and daughter also had contact with the animal but did not become ill.
What Is Differential Etiology?
Differential etiology is a medical method used to compare possible causes of a patient’s condition. Dr. Rosenbaum applied that process to the restaurant meal, other foods, the symptom timeline, household circumstances, and possible contact with the pet lizard.
What Was the Final Ruling in Stachulski v. Apple New England?
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the $750,000 judgment on July 18, 2018. It upheld the admission of the plaintiff’s medical causation testimony, found sufficient evidence to support the verdict, approved the challenged damages instructions, and affirmed the denial of remittitur.
Foodborne Illness
Food microbiology
Food Poisoning
Salmonella
Product Safety
Chain Restaurants
Medical Records Review
Wage And Hour Disputes, +4
Food and Beverage
Food And Beverage, +4
Food and Beverage