Boneless chicken wings can have bones, says Ohio Supreme Court

In a recent ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed a peculiar yet significant issue: whether consumers can expect "boneless" chicken wings to be completely free of bones. 

This decision emerged from a lawsuit filed by Michael Berkheimer, who experienced severe medical complications after consuming a "boneless" wing that contained a bone, the Associated Press recently reported. 

The case raised questions about consumer expectations and product labeling, ultimately leading to a split decision from the state's highest court.

Do boneless chicken wings always come without bones?

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that consumers cannot expect boneless chicken wings to be entirely free of bones. This decision came after Berkheimer, a restaurant patron, suffered serious medical complications after he reportedly ate a "boneless wing" that did infact contain a bone in it. 

Berkheimer was dining at Wings on Brookwood in Hamilton, Ohio, when he felt a bone get stuck in his throat while eating boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce, according to the Associated Press. 

RELATED: In-N-Out isn't ranked as best fast food burger in America in new poll, see who is

Days later, he was hospitalized, and doctors discovered a bone had torn his esophagus, causing an infection. Berkheimer subsequently sued the restaurant, its supplier, and the chicken farm, alleging negligence.

Berkheimer's expectation is not entirely unfounded. A 2020 survey found that Americans are divided over the concept of boneless wings.

The survey of 2,000 American diners revealed that just over a third (34 percent) feel misled by the term "boneless wings," viewing them more as glorified chicken nuggets rather than actual wings.

A plate of boneless chicken wings served with two dipping sauces. (Photo by Michael P. Farrell/Albany Times Union via Getty Images)

How did the court rule on the boneless wings case?

In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the term "boneless wings" refers to a cooking style, not a guarantee of no bones. Justice Joseph T. Deters, writing for the majority, explained that diners should not expect boneless wings to be entirely free of bones, likening it to other menu items like "chicken fingers," which are not actually fingers.

"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," Deters wrote for the majority.

RELATED: Chipotle CEO addresses portion size criticism: Re-emphasizing 'generous portions'

The dissenting justices strongly disagreed with the majority opinion. Justice Michael P. Donnelly argued that a jury should have determined whether the restaurant was negligent. He emphasized that consumers, especially parents feeding young children, do not expect bones in products labeled as "boneless," and this expectation should be considered reasonable.

"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," Donnelly wrote in dissent. "When they read the word ‘boneless,’ they think that it means ‘without bones,’ as do all sensible people."

The Associated Press contributed to this story. It was reported from Los Angeles.