A federal jury decided Wendy’s restaurant was not at fault for a Standish woman being hospitalized in 2001 for what she claimed was the E. coli virus as a result of biting into an undercooked cheeseburger.

A jury in U.S. District Court in Portland deliberated for fewer than 20 minutes last Thursday before deciding in favor of the restaurant chain.

Diane Roney, 58, had claimed she contracted the illness at a Wendy’s in Saco when she partially consumed a “messy” cheeseburger that revealed a sizeable amount of blood when she cut the sandwich in two.

Roney’s husband, Paul, who was also a plaintiff in the civil suit, claimed he saw an employee of the restaurant use the restroom and then neglect to wash his hands.

At the time, the Roneys discarded the sandwich without complaining to the restaurant management about it or the unhygienic employee.

“It was a no-win situation,” said Michael Waxman, the plaintiffs’ attorney. “If she kept it as evidence, they’d say she’s all about suing. And by throwing it out, there is no evidence.”

Diane Roney declined to comment on the case.

A team of specialists who treated Roney for her ailments testified at the trial that she suffered from a preexisting blood disorder that produced symptoms similar to those commonly induced by the E. coli virus.

Jeffrey Edwards, a local attorney and co-council for Wendy’s, said the jury was unconvinced of Roney’s claim.

“Clearly the jury did not believe she had suffered E. coli exposure from Wendy’s,” he said. “Obviously, she did not have it. We didn’t just disprove the E. coli claim, the medical experts – those who had actually treated her – testified by deposition that she didn’t have it.”

Wendy’s other co-council, Josh Vincent, an attorney from Chicago, said Waxman challenged the jury in his closing argument to come back with a verdict in five minutes if they thought her claim was “criminal and fraudulent.”

“They came back in three,” Vincent said.

Although Wendy’s was found inculpable in this case and several experts had testified to the standards the restaurant practices to ensure quality products, there may be a negative residual effect on the company’s revenue, which had already experienced a large setback after a California woman hoaxed the public by claiming she found a human finger in a bowl of the restaurant’s chili.

“This is a very sensitive situation for Wendy’s because it is potentially very harmful to their business,” Edwards said.

Waxman, the plaintiffs’ council, agreed. “Every piece of bad publicity will have an impact, even if they are vindicated,” he said. “Whether she had E. coli or not, she ate a raw hamburger. They never denied that it was raw. This can be a very dangerous situation for them.”

Wendy’s co-council, Josh Vincent, an attorney from Chicago, said the restaurant’s representatives informed him that they are not seeing any negative impact on sales, either at the corporate level or at the Saco restaurant.

“Wendy’s has produced a statistically and scientifically sound testing program,” he said. “They are an industry leader (in terms of quality control). We put on a lot of evidence of the integrity and wholesomeness of their products. Even the state health inspector testified to this fact.”

Vincent said because the verdict was so quick and decisive, and because the defense had so thoroughly proved Wendy’s testing methods, the public backlash would be minimal, if not non-existent.

Bob Bertini, Wendy’s spokesman, said that because the incident was unconfirmed, the company would not suffer as a result of this lawsuit.