Hawaii man who had a medical emergency during false missile alert is suing the state |

Hawaii man who had a medical emergency during false missile alert is suing the state

The Washington Post
The destroyer USS Shaw explodes after being hit by bombs during the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, December 7, 1941. (AP Photo)

A man who suffered an apparent heart attack in the panicked moments after Hawaii sent out a false warning of an imminent ballistic missile attack earlier this year has filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming its gross negligence is responsible for his health condition.

James Sean Shields and his girlfriend Brenda Reichel filed the lawsuit in Hawaii state court Tuesday.

The office of Hawaii governor David Ige referred questions about the lawsuit, and whether any other similar ones had been filed, to the state’s attorney general, Doug Chin, who did not immediately respond.

The lawsuit describes the harrowing moments after the all caps message, sent due to a mistake at the state’s emergency management agency, went out to cellphones on the island about 8 a.m. Jan. 13, warning of a ballistic missile threat inbound” and cautioning that “this is not a drill.”

“Both plaintiffs believed this message to be true and were extremely frightened and thought they were shortly going to die,” the lawsuit states. “They decided that there was not much they could do to protect themselves from this threat and decided that if they were going to die, they might as well die together on the beach.”

Reichel’s son, a member of the Army National Guard in Hawaii, also told the couple that the threat was real. They made it to the beach around 8:15 a.m., and both called family members to tell them that they loved them, according to the complaint. Shields phoned his son and daughter on the mainland.

Shortly after the call, he began to feel a “severe and painful burning” in his chest, the complaint said. He tried cooling down in the ocean, to no avail. So they headed to a nearby medical center, missing the 8:45 a.m. message sent to cellphones that noted the warning had been a false alert.

Within minutes of arriving at the center, Shields had a heart attack, the complaint said. Shields underwent surgery at a nearby hospital, but the heart attack has left him with damage to his heart, according to the complaint.

The complaint cites a statement from Dr. John MacGregor, a cardiologist at the University of California’s San Francisco Medical Center, who told the couple that the missile warning was a “substantial contributing factor in causing the heart attack and cardiac arrest.”

MacGregor said that Shields had no known cardiac disease before that time and noted literature with findings about how severe mental stress can trigger heart attacks. He cited a study in the medical journal Lancet that found a sharp rise in heart attacks when Iraq attacked Israel with missiles during the Gulf War, according to the complaint.

Shields’s account is just one of many to emerge about the moments after Hawaii sent the false missile alert. The incident was the result of a mistake during a training exercise at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency; officials said that a worker, who was later fired, confused the drill for the real thing.

And for the nearly 40 minutes before officials corrected the warning with a follow-up text, hundreds of thousands of people on the archipelago state believed it was, too.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.