American Airlines faces new lawsuit over 2022 in-flight cardiac arrest death of 14-year-old

Quick summary

A federal appeals court’s recent May 14, 2026 ruling has revived a lawsuit against American Airlines over the 2022 in-flight cardiac arrest death of 14-year-old Kevin Greenidge, who collapsed on a flight from Honduras to New York. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a genuine factual dispute exists over whether the FAA-required onboard defibrillator actually delivered a shock — and that question now goes before a jury in federal court in Fort Worth.

The court dismissed claims about crew confusion and delayed response as insufficient grounds for liability under the Montreal Convention. What remains is a direct test of whether the aircraft’s legally mandated lifesaving equipment worked.

Kevin Greenidge was 14 years old, traveling with his family from San Pedro Sula to New York, when he went into cardiac arrest somewhere over the Gulf of Mexico. He never made it home.

His family’s lawsuit against American Airlines has now cleared a major legal hurdle. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled earlier this month that the case can move forward — not on the grounds of crew confusion or delayed response, but on a narrower and more unsettling question: did the FAA-required automated external defibrillator on that aircraft actually work?

Four witnesses, including a doctor and a nurse who assisted during the emergency, testified that no shock was ever delivered to the boy. American Airlines counters that the AED’s internal data log recorded a shock eight minutes after activation. The Fifth Circuit said that conflict — machine record versus human testimony — is exactly the kind of factual dispute a jury must resolve. A company cannot defeat eyewitness accounts of a possibly malfunctioning device simply by pointing to data generated by the device itself.

The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth for further proceedings. For passengers who have ever watched a flight attendant struggle with an unfamiliar piece of equipment mid-flight, the implications are not abstract.

What the Fifth Circuit actually decided — and what it left open

The ruling did not find American Airlines liable. It found that liability cannot be ruled out.

Under the Montreal Convention — the international treaty governing passenger injury and death on international flights — an airline is only responsible if the harm resulted from an “accident,” defined as an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger. The Fifth Circuit accepted that imperfect, confused, or delayed crew response does not meet that threshold. Flight attendants are not doctors. Courts have consistently held that substandard emergency response, even response that violates an airline’s own procedures, does not automatically constitute an airline-caused accident.

All flight attendants on the flight had completed the required annual AED training. Whether they retained that training in a crisis — whether they could operate the device under pressure, in a galley, with carts blocking the aisle — is a separate matter the court declined to treat as grounds for liability.

What the court did treat as grounds for liability is the equipment itself. Federal regulations under 14 CFR Part 121 require commercial passenger aircraft to carry approved AEDs, properly labeled, regularly inspected, and maintained to perform according to manufacturer specifications. If that device failed — if it advised CPR when it should have delivered a shock — that failure is potentially an external event that caused or contributed to a passenger’s death. That is the question now headed to a jury.

Why equipment records — not crew performance — are now the legal battleground

The regulatory architecture here is worth understanding, because it shapes what “airline accountability” actually means in practice.

The FAA has jurisdiction over U.S. Part 121 carriers — the category covering American Airlines and all major U.S. commercial operators. The agency’s rules require AEDs on passenger aircraft, mandate regular inspection, and require crew training on their use. Crucially, the FAA has not issued any enforcement action or penalty against American Airlines in connection with this incident. This is civil litigation, not a regulatory proceeding. Compliance is judged through maintenance logs, training records, and inspection documentation — and those are exactly the records a plaintiff’s legal team will now seek in discovery.

That distinction matters. An airline can be in full FAA compliance on paper while a device malfunctions in practice. The court’s ruling essentially says: the paper trail is not the whole story.

This case also sits alongside a broader pattern of American Airlines facing federal scrutiny over passenger treatment — including a separate federal lawsuit filed in April 2026 alleging the carrier discriminated against a deaf passenger’s family. The legal pressure is accumulating from multiple directions.

Steps to protect yourself if a medical emergency happens on your flight

International flights from Central America to the U.S. — routes where diversions to nearby airports like Cancun can occur — are not the only exposure here. Any international itinerary governed by the Montreal Convention carries the same legal framework.

• Speak up immediately and loudly. If you or a travel companion experiences a medical event, alert crew verbally and clearly. Do not wait for a flight attendant to notice. Ask them to document the time and their response actions.
• Request the AED be brought out and ask if it is functioning. You have the right to ask crew to use onboard medical equipment. If a medically trained passenger is on board, ask crew to make an announcement — this is standard procedure and you can prompt it yourself.
• Note the aircraft tail number and flight number. If you later need to pursue a claim, the specific aircraft’s maintenance and inspection records are central evidence. Tail numbers appear on the exterior of the aircraft and sometimes on boarding documentation.
• Preserve all documentation. Medical records from any diversion hospital, witness contact information, and any written communication from the airline after the event are all potentially relevant to a Montreal Convention claim.
• Understand the legal framework before filing. U.S. DOT passenger-rights rules do not provide fixed compensation for in-flight medical emergencies. Recovery comes through litigation. An attorney familiar with international aviation law and the Montreal Convention is essential — not optional.

Watch: The Fort Worth district court’s scheduling order — expected within the coming months — will signal whether discovery on AED maintenance records and crew training logs is moving forward. Separately, any FAA advisory clarifying AED inspection or training standards would have immediate implications for every U.S. Part 121 carrier.

Questions? Answers.