Giorgi Family on Lawsuit and Natalie’s Impact on Allergy Advocacy, Research
On October 5, the City of Sacramento settled the lawsuit brought by Louis and Joanne Giorgi in the tragic food allergy death of their 13-year-old daughter Natalie for $15 million. The city also agreed that Camp Sacramento – where Natalie had a fatal anaphylactic reaction in July 2013 after biting into a peanut-containing snack – will become accredited with the American Camping Association and implement full food allergy training, accommodation and emergency protocols.
The lawsuit had accused the city and the camp of negligence, particularly in the training of staff who were meant to be serving allergy-safe food to campers with food allergies. In addition, after Natalie’s two epinephrine auto-injectors hadn’t stopped her fast-progressing reaction, the emergency response was slowed when the camp’s staff couldn’t locate the key to a medical cabinet that contained an auto-injector. (Louis Giorgi ultimately broke into the cabinet.)
Editor Gwen Smith speaks to Joanne and Louis Giorgi about everything from the lawsuit settlement, to their foundation’s aims, and their heartfelt desire to make Natalie’s name synonymous with positive change in food allergy research and education.
GS: Thank you so much for sitting down with Allergic Living. To start us off, perhaps you could speak about the lawsuit’s resolution. Why did you settle and what do you hope will come out of the settlement?
Louis Giorgi: We never really thought about it [a lawsuit] in the beginning. But when it became something that we considered, we thought it would be very consistent with the idea of raising awareness and making sure that we could get people to pay more attention to the issue [of anaphylaxis]. And I think we were able to accomplish that.
The City of Sacramento has made their statement and it is quite strong – they are going to make changes and those changes are going to protect future campers. Therefore, hopefully, there will never be another story like Natalie’s with those changes.
GS: What were the more important camp precautions that Sacramento has agreed to make?
Joanne Giorgi: Our understanding is that food safety training will have to go on. To us, the biggest piece is that people will receive training in food safety, and making sure, as the old saying goes, that every ‘i’ is dotted and every ‘t’ is crossed. There are checks and balances, and knowing that there are standards in terms of what they’re accounting for, what staff has been trained – all of those things are clearly important to us, and we thought would be important to other people with food allergies.
In the event of a case like Natalie’s, my understanding is that they will also have more procedures in place to help expedite emergency care.
LG: The American Camping Association has the criteria on their website of what they cover, and it covers everything from health forms and medication to medical facilities and requirements. It talks about the food safety aspect, transportation and emergency services – which will go beyond food allergies – but it encompasses keeping everybody safer. That was important for us.
GS: Louis, I was struck by what you said recently to the media. Your message to those in food services was: ‘Be aware of what you’re serving and who you’re serving it to.’ Can you elaborate on that?
LG: One of the journalists said, ‘Are you anti-peanut?’ And I said, ‘No, we’re not anti-peanut, we’re for awareness.’ There’s nothing wrong specifically with people eating peanuts or milk or whatever it is. But it is a simple thing to know – if that food were labeled, Natalie wouldn’t have eaten it. And we wouldn’t be talking.
That’s really what the point is. Who is your audience and what are you serving, and it doesn’t require any huge additional costs or special equipment. It’s simply a matter of knowing what you’re serving and who you’re serving it to.
GS: That’s also a good message because sometimes people who serve food might become fearful of allergies and think, ‘we just can’t serve these people.’ Have you run into that attitude?
JG: We have not. If anything, I think many restaurants have become better about with working with our needs. If we do eat out, there are many times that I feel much more confident than I did years ago that they understand, that there’s clearly somebody in the kitchen who gets what I’m talking about and is willing to work with us.
LG: I’ve seen a big difference, too. The other day we were at a store and looking for Halloween stuff – costumes mostly. But we saw there was a big list of allergens in the candy aisle. Again, it’s a simple accommodation: ‘Here’s what we have,’ and you look at the list and you pick what works for you. We were impressed, because that’s something we certainly didn’t see five years ago.
GS: You had already set up the Natalie Georgi Sunshine Foundation. Will you be putting some of the settlement toward food allergy research or awareness through the foundation?
JG: The simple answer is yes, although we haven’t even wrapped our heads around that. We will use that [funds from the settlement] to continue to hopefully make an impact – and that would be felt in a big way by both research, clearly, and continued education. We haven’t formulated how it all breaks down. I think that in turn will make us feel good, so we can continue to do good in the [allergy] community.
LG: While we haven’t had a chance to formulate a plan at this point, we’re in the mindset that we would work with one of the universities and bring [the story of] Natalie to start the fundraiser, and work on a chair position or something to create an event, and then hopefully raise more money. We really do hope to be able to leverage Natalie in that way, and make a much bigger difference now.
[Editor’s note: Joanne and Louis explain that, before the settlement, Natalie’s foundation had already made a significant donation to research at Stanford University’s Sean Parker Center for Allergy & Asthma Research, plus contributed funds toward FARE Teen Summit and for FARE’s development of preschool allergy materials.]
JG: Going forward it’s finding ways, like Louis said, to leverage and get involved – helping people within the community … and hopefully making an impact in the research.
GS: Natalie’s passing did touch a nerve in the food allergy community. What have people told you about why they were so affected?
JG: The people who seem to be most affected are the ones we still hear from, the people who are just frightened it will happen to their child. And clearly that’s all of our fears when you’re living with a child with food allergies. [Natalie’s siblings also have allergies.]
We still hear from people primarily for one of two things. One is the people who are still struggling to get those around them to take their child’s food allergies seriously, and then we also hear the stories from families who have shared Natalie’s story and effected change [such as at school or a camp]. And we’ve also had people tell us they never carried EpiPens – and now they carry them.
LG: We’ve had people even say that their doctors never seemed to pay that much attention and they kind of changed their management in terms of being on top of having the auto-injectors, and coming up with an action plan. They never had one before until after Natalie.
JG: Those are the little stories that people will reach out and let us know. I had one mom send me a very nice story that she felt Natalie’s presence in a room when she and her husband were disagreeing about whether to give the epi or not. She said she just gave it because ‘I literally felt your daughter’s presence saying, Give it. Give it.’
Those are amazing stories to hear – that by us sharing Natalie’s story that we can have impacted, or even changed within the community how somebody was doing things. Because our goal is that nobody else suffers the same loss.
Next: Having impact on school laws and airlines