Closing Arguments Continue In Ritter ...

Closing Arguments Continue In Ritter Malpractice Lawsuit

There are 8 comments on the KNBC Los Angeles story from Mar 12, 2008, titled Closing Arguments Continue In Ritter Malpractice Lawsuit. In it, KNBC Los Angeles reports that:

The doctor who treated John Ritter the night the comedic actor died "clearly" committed malpractice by failing to order a chest X-ray and instead using incorrect treatments that led to his death, an attorney ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KNBC Los Angeles.

Orange Attorney

Paramount, CA

#1 Mar 12, 2008
This trial is what's wrong with the system...complicated medical issues left to the decision making abilities of a lay jury. Medical malpractice cases should be decided by judges with a much better understanding of the legal and medical issues presented. It's unfortunate, but true, that physicians prevail in about 90% of the medical malpractice trials in Southern California, in large part due to the juries' inherent limitations in these cases. Given only 7-10 days to receive and understand the facts, hear and understand the expert opinions, and hear and apply the law, there is virtually no chance a lay jury is going to get it right the majority of the time.
Another opinion

United States

#2 Mar 13, 2008
Yes, I agree that is true in many complicated cases; and, years ago, I did a little bit of medicolegal consulting as an expert. I vastly preferred defense cases, because I felt the system was so predatory against doctors, I believed that almost any doctor deserved the best defense that he/she could get. On the other hand, I remember two times that I gave an opinion that was favorable to the plaintiff. I guess I had a feeling of public responsibility for the people who were victims of flagrant malpractice.

You are right that, in general, the most complicated cases are the ones that go on trial. Usually, the experts that are consulted on both sides agree on what probably happened; and then the lawyers usually work out a settlement (no trial needed). When authentic experts disagree, those are the cases where a jury is asked to decide. The whole thing then becomes theater. The side that puts on the most convincing show in the courtroom will win.

The exception to the above rules occurs when the $ value of the case is so great, that neither side feels that it can afford to settle. This problem may happen in the situation where the expected lifetime earnings of a celebrity are at stake.

To an outsider looking in at the facts that have been alleged in the present case, the medical issues appear to be pretty simple, as I just wrote in a 'comment' about the previous news story in this thread.

signed,

Another Opinion
Victim of a violent crime

Los Angeles, CA

#3 Mar 13, 2008
I'm sorry I cannot get past the grotesque amount of money Mr. Ritter's widow is asking for.
SC Carlyle

Reseda, CA

#4 Mar 13, 2008
While I am very sorry for the early death of Mr. Ritter, I believe his wife is incredibly greedy and this case is wrong in so many ways. To begin with, doctors are human they have to make quick decisions in moments and do the best to their ability. Evidently, this specific problem was genetic and in that case Mr. Ritter had the responsibility to get it checked and if a doctor did not agree - get another doctor but the patient has to have responsibility too.
Additionally, the widow of Mr. Ritter has already gotten a huge sum from the hospital-- so how much is enough money? She claims the amount is given what Mr. Ritter might have earned had he lived, but come on the show he was on was going downhill and he was lucky to have that show. Let's take the case of ten actors in Mr. Ritter's age range who were on television shows early in their career and see how much they are making, not working much are they?
I believe Amy Yasbeck should have to pay for the legal defense costs and to the taxpayers for this greedy waste of our taxpayer dollars.

“Send 'em back, kids & all !!”

Since: Feb 08

Huntington Beach, CA

#5 Mar 13, 2008
Victim of a violent crime wrote:
I'm sorry I cannot get past the grotesque amount of money Mr. Ritter's widow is asking for.
I agree. I think it reflects poorly on her and makes her look greedy as opposed to grieving. Let's put aside all of the "nothing can bring him back" platitudes and just say "please, don't you have enough already?" I find it hard to believe the family is struggling financially. Whatever sympathy I felt for them is gone.
Maggie

AOL

#6 Mar 13, 2008
Get a grip people...medicine is "practiced"; it is not an exact science!!
Unlike you I have a Brain

Los Angeles, CA

#7 Mar 14, 2008
He's dead. They don't need the cash. Waste of time. Case closed.
no one

Jackson, MS

#8 Mar 14, 2008
So, did he have Marfan syndrome or not?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Three's Company Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Suzanne Somers: Super Saleswoman (Apr '07) Aug '13 Dawson 4
News Suzanne Somers sizzles on The O'Reilly Factor (Feb '10) Jul '12 LOL 2
News Settlement Reached in John Ritter Suit (Mar '06) Apr '12 kristy 95
News Suzanne Somers: Sexy Forever Diet (Jan '11) Feb '12 unbelievable2 4
News Grandma's a movie pirate? Are you sure? (Apr '11) Dec '11 roblee692005 5
News Dateline NBC to feature Suzanne Somers unorthod... (Feb '11) Feb '11 Ralph 3
News James Franco Wore a Blond Ladies' Wig at Sundance (Jan '11) Jan '11 NW Hominid 1
More from around the web