Not Guilty
Filed under: R.I.P.
After John Ritter's sudden death a few years ago, his family filed suit for negligence against his radiologist and cardiologist.
Ritter died in 2003 due to a torn aorta. His widow and children blamed the docs for not properly screening and warning Ritter.
On Friday, a California jury (with a verdict of 9-3) has cleared both doctors against all charges in this civil case.
To add even more salt to an open wound, the jury also found that after getting a full body scan in 2001, Ritter was advised by his radiologist to get follow up treatment by a physician. Unfortunately, Ritter never made the followup visit he was told to do.
Note to everyone, please take your doctor's advise seriously. If they tell you get seek treatment, do it. Be safe, y'all!
[Image via WENN.]
Shame on his money grubbing wife to sue those doctors! That is a big reason health care is so expensive! I am sorry he died but his wife is a dumb greedy Bitch.
It WASN"T even his family doing the suing, but was only his WIFE! What a greedy whore. I'm glad the jury saw the truth. Seriously, this never should have gone to court in the first place. What a complete waste of time. RIP John. We'll all miss you.
this is a toast.
Wow, can I be the president? I think I fit the mold. I have no experience, no qualifications and no idea how to run a fucking country… Obama sucks.
Follow doctors directions?? Perez dont be a hipercrite, lose weight fatt assss
he's red?
Re: robin – PEOPLE, SHE SUED BECAUSE JOHN WANTED A SECOND OPINION AND THE ATTENDING STATED THERE WAS " NO TIME " AND PROCEEDED TO TREAT HIM FOR A HEART ATTACK VERSUS A TORN AORTA WHICH IS TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TREATMENTS , BY TREATING JOHN FOR A HEART ATTACK AND THE AGGRESSIVE PROCEDURE THAT GOES WITH THAT DIAGNOSIS , IT EXAGGERATED THE ISSUE WITH THE TORN AORTA AND THUS - JOHN DIED. UNDERSTAND NOW ?
SOME OF THESE RESPONSES ARE STATED WITH SUCH CONVICTION AS IF THEY KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT . GLAD THE DOCTORS WON ? GLAD OUR SYSTEM WORKS ? WTF ?
YES I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT HE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE ORIGINAL DOCTOR'S ADVICE MONTHS PRIOR .HOWEVER , ROBIN YOU ARE A MORON WITH YOUR HEARTLESS COMMENTS.
I HOPE YOU OR A LOVED ONE ARE NEVER FACED WITH ANY MALPRACTICE , BECAUSE GOD FORBID YOU ARE EVER FACED WITH THAT , YOU REFLECT ON YOUR BS COMMENT ON THIS THREAD AND WHEN YOU ARE SUING , I HOPE YOU GO DOWN IN THE BOOKS AS ROBIN THE BLACK KETTLE …
The health care provider will listen to your heart, lungs, and abdomen with a stethoscope. A "blowing" murmur over the aorta , a heart murmur, or other abnormal sound may be heard.
There may be a difference in blood pressure between the right and left arms, or between the arms and the legs.
There may be low blood pressure , bulging neck veins, or signs resembling a heart attack. There may be signs of shock (inadequate blood flow to the body tissues), but with normal blood pressure .
Aortic dissection or aortic aneurysm may be revealed on:
Echocardiogram
Transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE)
Chest x-ray — may show chest widening or�fluid in the lining of the lung (pleural effusion)
Chest MRI
CT scan of chest with dye
Aortic angiography
Doppler ultrasonography (occasionally performed)
Aortic dissection is life threatening. The chance of death within the first 48 hours is 1% per hour for patients who do not get treatment. The condition can be cured with surgery if it is done before the aorta ruptures. Less than half of patients with ruptured aorta survive.
Symptoms
Chest pain
Sudden, severe, sharp, stabbing, tearing, or ripping
Located below the chest bone, then moves under the shoulder blades or to the back
May move to shoulder , neck, arm, jaw, abdomen, or hips
Location may change — pain typically moves to the arms and legs as the aortic dissection gets worse
Changes in thought ability, confusion, disorientation
Decreased movement, any location
Decreased sensation , any location
Intense anxiety , anguish
Pallor
Rapid,weak pulse
Profuse sweating (clammy skin)
Dry skin
Dry mouth
Thirst
Nausea and vomiting
Dizziness
Fainting
Shortness of breath — difficulty breathing when lying flat ( orthopnea )
The symptoms usually begin suddenly.
An aortic dissection may also involve abnormal widening or ballooning of the aorta ( aneurysm ).
The exact cause is unknown, but risks include atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and high blood pressure . Traumatic injury is a major cause of aortic dissection, especially blunt trauma to the chest as can be caused by hitting the steering wheel of a car during an accident.
Other risk factors and conditions associated with the development of aortic dissection including:
Pregnancy
Marfan's syndrome
Pseudoxanthoma elasticum
Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
Coarctation (narrowing) of the aorta
Bicuspid aortic valve
Vascular inflammation due to conditions such as arteritis and syphilis
Connective tissue disorders
Heart surgery or procedures
Aortic dissection occurs in approximately 2 out of every 10,000 people. It can affect anyone, but is most often seen in men aged 40 to 70.
Trauma patients were successfully treated with a minimally invasive technique without open chest surgery
See WJLA TV's news coverage Surgeons at the University of Maryland Medical Center are using an innovative approach to save the lives of trauma patients who have a TORN AORTA, a life-threatening injury that can occur after a high-speed car crash. A tear in the aorta, which is the body’s main artery, is a life-threatening situation. The surgeons have successfully repaired this type of injury, called an aortic transection, in more than 20 patients at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, without making any chest incision, using a minimally invasive approach called an endovascular repair.
Their experience using this technique is published in the March 2007 issue of the Journal of Vascular Surgery, in which the first 20 cases are described. It is the largest published number of endovascular aortic repairs in trauma patients at a single center in the world.
“This endoscopic repair probably is the most significant advance in the treatment of aortic trauma in the last 50 years, because many trauma patients have other serious injuries that make the traditional open surgery to repair the aorta extremely risky,” says David G. Neschis, M.D., a vascular surgeon at the University of Maryland Medical Center and the lead author of the article. The risks of open surgery in these patients, he says, include paralysis and death.
With the older, traditional method to repair aortic transection, surgeons would sew in a graft after making a large incision, cutting open the chest and clamping the aorta. In that procedure, the patient also needed to go on a heart-lung bypass machine.
“We knew from our experience that we could fix the torn aorta with a graft. The difference in these cases was in the delivery. By going through the bloodstream, we had a minimally invasive procedure with virtually no blood loss. We also cut down on operating time and dramatically reduced the risks for these trauma patients. The recovery time is also much quicker,” says Bartley P. Griffith, M.D., chief of cardiac surgery at the University of Maryland Medical Center, and professor and head of the Division of Cardiac Surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
I still get sad every time I hear or see anything about John Ritter - such a nice guy, funny man and devoted dad. His death is still so shocking! Why can't there be more people like him in Hollywood, instead of all these fucked up, selfish, drug-and-booze addicted douchebags????
If your aorta is torn badly enough that you can see the change on a chest x-ray you are totally F*cked. It's nice for the patient and family to have a correct daignosis instantly but here's what would have happened next. He would have gone to surgery, had his chest opened and bled to death in about 3 seconds. If surgeons (who also would have been sued for millions) had somehow stopped the bleeding, he still would have become a vegetable or severely disabled b/c the circulation to his brain and heart would have been so poor during the operation.
This family had already won millions in settlements, and was probably quite well off. They should be ashamed of themselves that their vindictiveness has already taken expensive things like chemotherapy and transplant surgery away from dying patients that that money could have helped. It won't bring him back and it is indirectly causing suffering for other innocent patients and families. There is only so much money to go around like prior posters have referred to.
You can't do a minimally invasive surgery on a case like poor J. R's. Trauma patients have a normal aorta to start and you can patch it up. J. R. had been slowly expanding over time like a balloon and eventually blew. Being in the OR for 3 of these cases it was a totally helpless feeling and honestly the outcome was worse for the patient who survived (brain damage.) I agree there was a few hours window of time where a correct diagnosis could have been made, with the same outcome in the end. If the other diagnosis of concern was heart attack, it is reasonable to treat for heart attack because people survive those and you want to get them the best outcome.
When people sue doctors these days it is not taking money away from a rich professional, it is taking the money from the pool to help other patients. Your docs in many cases have 200K$ of debt, gave up their twenties to do residency to learn how to care for you, make less money all the time, and also have to fight with insurance companies for you to get you things you need. I'm sure J. R's whole medical team has done their own grieving, lost tons of sleep, and now also has had to waste tons of time and money in court.
Re: GOOD GRIEF – if he came in w/ symptoms that resembled a heart attack then there wouldn't be anytime for a second opinion. and "aggressive procedure"? i think fixing an aortic dissection would involve an aggressive procedure. it's not malpractice that they treated him for a heart attack as opposed to an aortic dissection unless there was compelling evidence that suggested one over the other. depending on how the situation presents itself it might have been irresponsible (using up precious minutes) to try and distinguish b/w the two. if the two ailments present with similar symptoms the doctor has a choice to make pretty quickly and has to stick to that choice. and unfortunately the doctors didn't pick the right path.
and to the poster who mentioned the scrubs episode…i remember. and they just happened to catch it while they were looking for something else. and the patient was admitted to the hospital in a non-emergency situation. so they had more time to think and they were still too late.
GOOD GRIEF- John had an atypical presentation of an extremely rare condition (about 6 per 100,000 in the population). His symptoms mimicked a classic heart attack and 99% of the time or better they would have been correct with that diagnosis. It would have been malpractice for them to delay treatment further waiting for additional tests. Do you know how many aortic dissections appear on CXR? 50%. Do you know the false-positive rate for potential aortic involvement on CXR? 30%. I believe John Ritter's aortic dissection had coronary involvement; the mortality rate for this presentation jumps from 70% for a contained dissection to 90%! Meaning that even with an instant diagnosis and immediate surgery he would've only had a 10% chance of living.
As for there not being time for a second opinion… um, duh! They believed him to be in the midst of a heart attack and his vitals were rapidly dropping! What responsible doctor would withhold treatment for the length of time it would take for another cardiologist to be called in and examine?
The doctors' liability hinges on a.) whether another competent physician presented with the same evidence would've made a different decision and b.) if they delay in determining a correct diagnosis altered the outcome (i.e., would he have survived otherwise). A jury who heard the evidence, more than you or I will ever know about this case, decided no.
NOT LIABLE … The hospital and other doctors who settled, fearing the sentimentality of a jury deliberating re beloved John Ritter would act on emotion rather than law, was pushed to settle to the tune of $14mil. And, yet, they were NOT LIABLE. Three cheers for these two doctors for standing up for justice and not caving on their own reputations. Yes, sometimes malpractice is committed, but 95% of med mal cases are brought by people who are upset about the facts of life, not because actual negligence was committed by any medical provider. It's ridiculous. And, we all pay. We ALL pay- our insurance goes up, med mal insurance goes up, health care costs go up, doctors won't treat patients without waivers out the wazoo and insurance in place. Thanks to people like Amy, and the lawyers who take their cases.
So, now, Amy has more money than she needs, still no John and the hospital has less to allocate towards patients who need it and the advancement of future medical care. GREAT results… GREAT.
The over-litigiousness of our society does NO ONE any favors. No wonder people in Europe are agast at our legal and health care systems… we have the wrong priorities governing things…
A dissecting aorta presents EXACTLY like a heart attack, also an emergency situation. How much more common are heart attacks than dissecting aortas?? You can't even put a number on it…the doctors practiced good medicine to the best of their ability. I am glad most of the people who posted comments agree with the verdict. Perhaps we will be rid of frivolous lawsuits in the future…because a frivolous lawsuit is exactly what this was. RIP and God bless his family. Now they can begin the normal grieving process.
I LOOOOOVE him. So funny! RIP
Shit Happens
Re: EDUCATE YOURSELVES – What is the point of all of this stuff that you cut and pasted??? That's great info if the person is aware of the condition in advance - yes, you can plan for that nice, non-invasive surgery. But when it is a sudden situation, all of that info is out the window. My uncle suffered a ruptured aorta 2 months ago and when it is an acute condition that requires immediate action, you have to crack open the rib cage and hope for the best. Thankfully, he was among the less than 1% that survive the very risky surgery. John Ritter's situation though tragic, could have gone either way. Whether he followed up on doctor's advice is a moot point. That does not mean that the doctor who treated him at the moment he came in to the emergency room ought to be sued because he died. If he had been aware that his aorta might rupture, sure, he would have been a good candidate for the surgical prodecures you speak, er, cut and paste so eloquently of. But the fact that he did not follow up was his own doing and that does not make the doctor who treated him that evening liable for his death. Shame on his wife for trying to go after millions of dollars. What would that have accomplished? No wonder insurance costs are spiraling out of control. It is frivlolous judgements that are awarded to people who sue for every little thing that cause these companies to pass along the cost to people like you and me.
Sad situation for the Ritters, who must miss John like crazy, but your advice is right on the money, Perez. Follow your doc's advice - PLEASE! He should have lived a much longer life. Sympathy to his loved ones.
Not only is his death tragic, but it's tragic to think they were suing doctors for so much money. I'm glad they were found not guilty. It's hard to lose a loved one but doctors do try their best and they are still not god.
Re: Diana – Hey I don't think this person was trying to act like it was coming from his head , it's obvious it came from an article because it names doctor's and their comment.
Like the ' cut and paste ' ( as you so gallantly pointed it out like a 8 year old snitch ) shows that there seems to be a minimally invasive procedure that was introduced in 1997 as I understand , WITHOUT cracking the rib cage open .
I like his/her posts because it stands out as someone trying to raise awareness on something constructive versus the majority of the usual insulting angry crybabies commenting at PH.
As much as I liked John Ritter, I'm glad his family did not prevail. People have gotten so darn sue crazy. Had a car ACCIDENT (emphasis on accident) sue, sue, sue!!! Have a medical malfunction, sue, sue, sue!!! Gross, disgusting. Have a heart people. Other people do make mistakes, unbewares. Doctor's are not perfect, drivers are not perfect, people in general are not perfect. People make errors. Do you realize when you sue a person you can completely financially criple that person for the rest of their life? Over an honest mistake. Think about it people. Be kind. Sueing should only be reserved for very extreme circumstances.
Re: jessica – oh jessica , give me a break on your argument . so if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck , then it must be a duck ??? Christ , I hope you are not a doctor if so , oh god - you'll be one of the countless docs that make mistakes and ends up severly hurting or killing a patient based on assumption . Go back to your studies child .
Re: MedStudent – med student , keep studying , for all our sakes. It's 10 in every 100,000. As a " med student " you have to have precise knowledge.Seems by your answer , you are going to be one of those know it all docs that is protected by a 500,000 cap on malpractice lawsuits , but I'm sure there will be many . These arrogant doctors who " presume , assume " think they know it all and end up putting the patient in an even worse position should be annihilated. Too many of you fvck ups in the medical field.
Re: skeptical at best – I think they meant the " wrong aggressive procedure ". If you come in with a stroke and they treat you for an aneurism , both are aggressive procedures , but two TOTALLY DIFFERENT aggressive procedures and therefore resulting in a negative outcome.
I am just using these examples to illustrate a point.
Re: Hayden Langstein – Did you just pull that number out of your ass? Go to Medline (assuming you even know what that is) and look it up for yourself. The incidence rate among the general population of all aortic dissections is 2 in 10,000 (so that would be 20 per 100,000- not 10) however, as I already mentioned once, John Ritter had an aortic dissection with coronary artery involvement, which is less common, and the incidence rate for that is indeed 6 per 100,000. Until you can document a published source showing otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Re: MedStudent – hahahaha,idiot med student , you must be jewish . Just what the world needs , another little angry jewish doctor…
I LOVE EIGHT SIMPLE RULESS
I LOVE HIM HE WAS THE BEST PART OF THE SHOW
Great result. I loved John Ritter, but this suing crap is crazy. And if they would have delayed the surgery and put him in for an MRI, they would have sued for delaying the surgery. His wife is annoying to the umph degree. She thinks she is the cutest thing that ever was. I don't think she evoked any jury sympathy. She over acts and goes way overboard. Rest in peace John.
I hate to say this, but John Ritter was a has been both before and after he died. He wife was suing these two good doctors for doing they best possible in the little time they had to save him (when he had a super rare condition they'd probably never encountered before–and experts said had they known, he would have still died anyway!). Had she won, it would have BANKRUPTED them and ended their careers (and the lives of many patients they'd save), all the time claiming that he'd still make close to $70 mil in his lifetime so the docs were responsible. And that his stupid sitcom that none of us watched was going to continue for another 8 years?!?!? Whos's she kidding? Guess that's the bum end you get when you choose to marty a guy twice your age for money… they often don't stay around as long as you'd like ; ( Just ask Anna Nicole. But anyway, Ritters wife already got $14 mil from the hostpital? Plus all his savings and life insurance. That's enough to provide free healthcare to all of America for a few years I'd wager. She's one greedy has been herself! And I kinda hope she gets screwed and has to cover the poor docs legal bills.
That's kinda funny. She claimed it would continue for 8 seasons? You must be kidding! He was destined for the Surreal Life in half the time, and I don't think they even pay them much (if anything).
Jurors said the majority believed the cardiologist summoned to the hospital after Ritter was diagnosed with a heart attack had no time to order a chest X-ray that might have found the tear.
They also said the radiologist, who gave Ritter a body scan two years earlier, did advise Ritter of coronary problems and to consult other doctors, but his failure to do so did not cause his death.
The 9-3 verdict means there is no damage judgment against the doctors, neither of whom were present when the jury reached a decision in the wrongful death lawsuit brought by Ritter's widow and children.
Verdicts do not have to be unanimous in civil cases.
"I disagree with the jury's decision but I believe in the system and I respect it," said the widow, Amy Yasbeck. "It inspires me even more to find, with these brilliant medical minds, a path to diagnose aortic diseases."
Yasbeck said she has started a foundation in her husband's name to work on the condition.
Lawyers for Ritter's family claimed Ritter's death resulted in a loss of as much as $67 million in future earnings. Eight other medical personnel and Providence St. Joseph Medical Center previously made settlements with the family totaling $14 million.
Neither doctor was present for the verdict, which was reached on the second day of deliberations and was read quickly.
Attorneys said Dr. Matthew Lotysch, the radiologist, and Dr. Joseph Lee, the cardiologist, were at work.
During the trial, attorneys for the families sought to show that Lee rushed to a faulty diagnosis and failed to have a chest X-ray taken that would have revealed the torn aorta, resulting in surgery that would have saved him.
Testimony showed that an X-ray was ordered as soon as Ritter arrived at the emergency room but for unknown reasons it was never done.
Lee was called in later in the evening after Ritter was already diagnosed with a heart attack.
Lotysch testified he told Ritter he had calcification in three coronary arteries and should consult other doctors. But in a related finding, the jury decided that Ritter's failure to pursue that medical consultation was not a cause of his death.
I'm also glad to know that the doctors aren't guilty. Nobody wants to believe that doctors would screw up that badly. People are totally sue happy in this country. It's kinda crazy. I'm sorry he passed away but the guy should have taken better care of himself. Shame shame.
"NOT GUILTY"
OK, legal lesson–the proper headline woulda been "NOT LIABLE". Guilt/innocence = criminal–Liable/not liable=civil. Of course, some negligent or gross negligent conduct can rise to a criminal charge, but not in this case.
RIP JACK TRIPPER
that whole lawsuit was rediculous. my grandmother died of an aortic disection. it happened then 8 hours later she died…it happens, and that conditon is very hard to treat and to find. the only way to tell is if an x ray shows an enlarged aorta. his wife is GREEDY to have filed this.