In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
John Ritter's Widow Testifies at Wrongful Death Trial
Amy Yasbeck by Gregg DeGuire/WireImage.com
Amy Yasbeck sobbed through much of her testimony as she told jurors about husband John Ritter's last moments before he was wheeled into surgery for what they thought was a heart attack, but what turned out to be a shredded aorta. The AP notes that Yasbeck's words were the final testimony heard for the plaintiff's side in the $67 mil wrongful-death suit Ritter's family filed against Dr. Joseph Lee and radiologist Dr. Matthew Lotysch.
Dr. Lee was the physician at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center who told the family that Ritter was in the middle of a heart attack and as such needed an angiogram. Dr. Lotysch had performed a body scan on the actor two years prior to his death and concluded that his aorta was normal.
Along with Yasbeck, Ritter's first wife of 19 years, Nancy, also testified. Ritter had told her his body scan had gone well, but she then offered, "Maybe he was trying to protect me."
Yasbeck's testimony concluded with her account of the unthinkable moment of having to tell her 5-year-old daughter that her father had died. "As much as I lost my husband and the love of my life and my soul mate, what I lost was Stella's father," she said, adding: "Every day [Stella] wakes up and there's a new way to miss her father. I can't make up for that." —Erin Fox
Do you think the family should be asking for such a large settlement? Or is no amount big enough to take away their pain?
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 2:06 PM
|
The doctors should be punished for ignoring John Ritter's family medical history (including the fact his father may have died of a dissection also!) Yes, no amount of money will bring him back to his wife and children, but it will send a message about the evils of sloppy medical work and due dilligence.
My prayers go out to the family for having to relive John Ritter's death.
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 2:19 PM
|
They can ask, but I'll save my judgment for when the jury returns with a verdict.
The same doctors and hospital can perform the same mistake (whether legally negligence or not, yet to be decided) on a well-known actor and an unknown children's librarian and yet the amount of damages can vary wildly (even assuming the same lawyers in both cases), since the estate is asking for lost wages. I'm not sure that's justice. It seems to say doctors and hospitals should save their best efforts for VIPs, since the little guys pose a much lesser liability risk.
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 2:20 PM
|
|
I really feel for the family, but is there real evidence of negligence in this case? A long line of loved ones testifying as to how much Ritter was loved does nothing to prove that the doctors were in any way culpable. I think we need to know a lot more about this story before making any comment.
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 2:39 PM
|
|
I feel bad for John Ritter's family. However, I agree that how much his family loved him had nothing to do with this case. I would have to see the evidence but aortic dissections are very difficult to diagnose and have about a 20% survival rate, I believe.
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 3:24 PM
|
A long line of loved ones testifying as to how much Ritter was loved does nothing to prove that the doctors were in any way culpable.
No, but it does make for better news stories than the medical stuff does. I'll bet you anything we won't be reading about the case's technical aspects here.
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 3:28 PM
|
I'll bet you anything we won't be reading about the case's technical aspects here.
I don't see why not! I learned everything I ever wanted to know about Britney's hoohah right here! I'm prackitly a doctor already! 
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 3:40 PM
|
I'm prackitly a doctor already!
Oh, good, TV Gord--I've got this trick knee that hurts every time I do this. Got any advice?
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 3:58 PM
|
monkey65, don't do that!
Badum-bum!
I'll be watching PayPal for my $350 fee. Oh wait, considering how kind you were to set me up with that punchline, let's just call it even.
(Gad, I'm already laughing harder than I ever did at Three's Company!!!) 
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 4:10 PM
|
|
I find it hard to believe the family would actually need that much money. He might have made that much money during the rest of his life but what if he didn't? She's a working actress, can't she support her daughter on her own? It just sounds very greedy to me. Besides, if every family of every person who died at the hospital sued, why would anybody in their right mind ever go into medicine? Besides, the hospital did what seemed to be the most obvious thing to do at the time of the emergency. They didn't have the time to explore every possibility and be absolutely sure what the problem was. They tried. It didn't work. Unfortunately, that's life for the rest of us.
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 4:17 PM
|
|
Cheapest doctor visit I ever made! (On another note--$350?! What are you, a Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon? But as long as you think that set-up is worth that, I'll go along with it.)
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 4:23 PM
|
|
I feel for his family, but think their lawsuit isn't really justified. A shredded aorta is hard to diagnose. Even if his condition had been diagnosed at first, his chances of surviving still would have been absymal.
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 4:24 PM
|
I do feel for the family, but I, too, want to hear about the technical side of things. Having spent years working on cases like this (the firm I worked for did a LOT of medical malpractice work), I've seen a lot of shoddy medical decisions and sloppy treatment. But, I've also seen people who want to blame the results on doctors, when the blame really lies with themselves for ignoring doctors' orders, not seeking treatment early, pretending nothing was wrong when they knew there really was, etc. So, honestly, we're none of us able to judge the merits of the case from this or other reports.
The amount of money being asked for is not exorbitant when you realize Ritter's earning power. I've seen cases of this size when the patient was not well known, but did have that kind of income. They just don't make the papers, because the deceased was not a celebrity.
While no amount of money will assuage the family's grief, this money will feed, clothe and educate a child who is still very young and must be supported for many years to come. It will ensure that both the ex-wife and the widow may be able to have a comfortable old age - which is not a guaranteed thing in Hollywood. Right now, monetary damages seem to be the only way to punish someone who has screwed up, too - if that is the case.
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 4:28 PM
|
(Gad, I'm already laughing harder than I ever did at Three's Company!!!)
Now, you know Mr. Furley is going to see that!!
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 4:29 PM
|
|
Sure, monkey, $350 may sound like a lot to you, but a few more of your perfect setups and I'm in the poorhouse! It's all about that bottom line at the end of the month.
|
|
Mar 4, 2008 4:30 PM
|
|
|
