Rare is the person who has not heard of John Ritter, an actor who co-starred with Suzanne Somers in a sitcom in the 70's and 80's called Three's Company. Ritter was working on the set of another sitcom in September of 2003 when he became acutely ill. He was rushed to an emergency room. The working diagnosis was myocardial infarct. Sadly, he had an aortic dissection and he died. Ritter's second wife settled a wrongful death suit with a number of defendants, including the hospital where he was treated, for a total of $14M.
Two remaining defendants, a radiologist and cardiologist, had their day in court and the jury rendered a verdict March of 2008. The amount demanded was $67 million. Let me repeat that number. Sixty seven million dollars. (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/05/john-ritters-67m-medica_n_85023.html)
The plaintiff's attorney said the family intended to use the proceeds from the lawsuit to educate the public about aortic dissection disease. The attorney did not say if the full amount would be available for such education, or 2/3 of that amount.
The astute reader will quickly connect that Ritter was an actor who lived in California. The astute reader will question how the poster child for tort reform, California, could nourish a lawsuit totaling such a large number. In California, non-economic damages are capped at $250,000, as they have been, for almost thirty years.
Here's how the math works. Ritter was working on a new TV show "8 Simple Rules For Dating My Teenage Daughter." He was 54 when he died. Had he not died, he presumably would have worked until some reasonable age of retirement. The logic continues he would have made the same money, year after year, as his current gig. Accordingly, he would have brought home high eight figures. In short, the family argued economic damages (not the non-economic number often touted in tort reform discussions) as the vehicle to hit the stratospheric target. To deconstruct the number again, that would be about $8M per Rule of Dating His Teenage Daughter.
I will not argue whether negligence was committed or not. Candidly, I haven't a clue. What I do know is that most physicians carry a "mere" $1M in professional liability coverage. I also know that obtaining such coverage often entails writing a sizable check.
Most physicians are flattered if they are among the few to be asked by high profile politicians, entertainers, sports stars, or billionaires to render care. But, is it possible that such high earners could possibly seek full indemnification for their salaries if something goes wrong? Most physicians never think about it. But, the legal system actually does countenance forcing the tortfeasor physician to make Tiger Woods, Bono, or Robert Dinero whole should negligent care be proven.
Back to the case at hand. If a doctor paused to reflect that his next move might put him at risk for a $66 M payout ($1M paid as policy limits by his carrier and the rest from personal funds), he would rationally take a pass. It is the rare physician who has amassed a fraction of such funds, and even if he did, why risk everything on a single episode of care.
Fortunately, most high earners value their earning capacity and insure against it on their own. They buy disability and life insurance, so that if something untoward does happen, they actually can be made whole. The law says you take the plaintiff "as you find him." So, if you negligently injure a billionaire, bankruptcy might be the only way out.
In the Ritter case, the jury agreed with the defendant physicians and exonerated them of any liability. They were lucky. How lucky? They were able to spend four years with attorneys worrying about their future, including potential bankruptcy. So, they didn't really win. They just lost less.
