John Ritter’s family sued his doctors for $67 million. How could this happen in California which has medical malpractice caps?

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 (source).

One of the interesting points made in the article quoted above, is that, if Ritter’s family had won their case, it might have had consequences for other celebrities seeking medical care. A doctor in California is normally told he needs to carry a million dollars worth of coverage. Basically, anyone making a great deal of income would have become too dangerous for a doctor to care for. Who is going to be willing to do a risky surgical procedure if it will mean that the patient’s relatives might successfully make you liable for over$60 million?

This would be yet another example of how medical malpractice risks tend to create shortages of doctors. In this case, however, the shortage would be for certain patients who entail a high economic risk.