'Boneless' chicken wings can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court rules after diner tore his throat

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this week that finding bones in chicken wings deemed boneless is not grounds for a lawsuit , which was a major blow to a restaurant customer who got an infection after he ingested a chicken bone.

Michael Berkheimer was dining with his wife and friends at a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio , and had ordered the usual — boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce — when he felt a bite-size piece of meat go down the wrong way. Three days later, feverish and unable to keep food down, Berkeimer went to the emergency room, where a doctor discovered a long, thin bone that had torn his esophagus and caused an infection.

Berkheimer said the infection negatively impacted his life forever. Additionally, he can't enjoy simple pleasures like playing ice hockey since the 2016 meal. "As a result of the accident, he can't work," his attorney, Robb Stokar, told media outlets in 2023. He worked in quality control for the aerospace industry, he added.

Extreme eater, 24, dies during 10-hour food binge livestream that left her stomach 'deformed'

Wisconsin mom chokes eating entire pack of Swiss Rolls while sleepwalking as 'hero' gran saves her life

Berkheimer sued the restaurant, Wings on Brookwood, saying they failed to warn him that so-called “boneless wings” — which are, of course, nuggets of boneless, skinless breast meat — could contain bones. The suit also named the supplier and the farm that produced the chicken, claiming all were negligent.

In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said Thursday that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style, and that Berkheimer should’ve been on guard against bones since it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones. The high court sided with lower courts that had dismissed Berkheimer’s suit.

“A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating ‘chicken fingers’ would know that he had not been served fingers,” Justice Joseph T. Deters wrote for the majority.

Click here to follow the Mirror US on Google News to stay up to date with all the latest news, sports and entertainment stories

The dissenting justices called Deters’ reasoning “utter jabberwocky,” and said a jury should’ve been allowed to decide whether the restaurant was negligent in serving Berkheimer a piece of chicken that was advertised as boneless.

“The question must be asked: Does anyone really believe that the parents in this country who feed their young children boneless wings or chicken tenders or chicken nuggets or chicken fingers expect bones to be in the chicken? Of course they don’t,” Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote in dissent. “When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people.”