Nebraska School District to Pay One Million Dollars to Settle Death Claim of Student who Died After Eating Teacher’s Snack

Nebraska School District to Pay One Million Dollars to Settle Death Claim of Student who Died  After Eating Teacher’s Snack

Public Schools across the nation are entrusted with our children to educate, feed, nurture and provide the tools necessary for our next generation to lead fulfilling lives.  As part of these responsibilities, schools must have robust precautions in place to ensure that students with allergies, and specifically food allergies, have policies and procedures in place to prevent incidents that could have dire consequences.  Having a robust and specific Risk Management plan in place to prevent and deal with these situations is of the utmost importance.

Facts and Background

A Nebraska school district has agreed to pay $1 million to the family of a teen who died of anaphylaxis in May 2022.  A 14-year-old student at Liberty Middle School in Papillion, Nebraska, was given a granola bar by his teacher.  Unfortunately, the bar contained peanuts and the student had a peanut allergy.  Tragically, the student later died in hospital following a severe allergic reaction.

During its March meeting, the Papillion La Vista Community school board received notification of settlement with the student’s parents related to the wrongful death claim. The school board’s liability insurance carrier has agreed to pay a lump sum settlement the the family of the deceased student. In exchange for the settlement, the student’s parents have agreed to release the school district from liability in connection with the unfortunate incident. The settlement was reached through a Nebraska probate court process, not a civil lawsuit. As a result, we have relatively little information about the claims and defenses of the respective parties.

What little information is known was obtained through social media postings of the family. According to the parents, the student asked if he could go to the office to retrieve a snack, but the teacher instead offered him a granola bar. The student began eating the bar, felt he was having an allergic reaction, and immediately went to the nurse’s office.  The student was given Benadryl and instructed to wait some time to see if it would work.  The young man tried to make himself vomit the offending food but was unable to do so.  He came back from the bathroom looking worse, and the student was administered an EpiPen while an ambulance was called.

The young man was taken to a local hospital, but anaphylaxis became critical. Complications ensued, and according to the family, the young man had brain swelling and his heart had to be re-started.  He was urgently transported to a critical care facility, Children’s Hospital & Medical Center in Omaha. The intensive care unit put the student on a ventilator, but oxygen deprivation and worsening swelling severely injured his brain. Doctors ultimately told the family, that scans showed that the student had negligible brain activity and no chance of recovery.

A Cautionary Tale for Risk Management Planning

In this classic example of good intentions leading to unintended consequences, several questions immediately come to mind in assessing this sequence of tragic events:

  • What are the general policies and procedures in place to protect students with food allergies?
    • What precautions were in place to prevent students with food allergies from encountering allergens?
  • Was the school aware of this particular child’s allergy?
    • If so, were all school officials/teachers/staff properly and timely notified?
    • Did the teacher that provided the granola bar know about the allergy?
      • If not, where was the disconnect in communicating this critical information?
    • What training were teachers and nurses given in how to deal with students experiencing allergic reactions?
      • Why was Benadryl the first line of defense?
        • Why did the school allow for a period of time to pass to monitor improvement?
      • What is the protocol for the school nurse to administer an EpiPen?
        • Why wasn’t the EpiPen administered sooner?
      • Is there a policy/procedure in place as to when to call emergency personnel?
    • Did the student know about his allergy?
      • How many times had he experienced allergic reactions?
      • Had the family provided notice to the school?

These are just a handful of questions which should be considered in formulating a plan/policy to protect students with allergies from encountering allergens with the potential for dire consequences.  A well-considered plan should be in place to prevent these incidents and timely and effectively respond when they occur.

The experienced lawyers of KPM spend great time and effort to stay aware of pertinent cases in the realm of Public Risk Management, and we can be counted on to be experts in cases involving public schools, parks, and public recreation areas.   You can trust KPM to be knowledgeable in public risk management and continue to keep you updated on cases and authorities that will significantly impact our clients. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us with questions, concerns, or for assistance.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.