Found this article this morning:

Ritter's Widow Talks "Sad" Truth About Death

by Natalie Finn

Doctors have said that it was only a matter of time before John Ritter's heart gave out. The late actor's wife, however, believes he may have been robbed of his remaining time.

Former Wings star Amy Yasbeck, who was married to Ritter for four years, is moving forward with a malpractice lawsuit against two doctors, one who met with her husband two years before his death and one who unsuccessfully treated him on Sept. 11, 2003 for what turned out to be a preexisting heart condition that wasn't diagnosed until it was too late.

Yasbeck says that none of the facilities that treated Ritter nor the doctors or other personnel involved has admitted any wrongdoing or apologized. She's planning to remedy that.

"You can't treat my kid's dad for something and kill him in the process," the actress told the Los Angeles Times in a recent interview. "I think the money will show how angry the jury will be about what happened to John and what could happen to them."

Yasbeck has already settled up with Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, where Ritter died, for $9.4 million and received more than $4 million from other civil-suit targets. But now she's going after radiologist Matthew Lotysch and cardiologist Joseph Lee for more than $67 million in damages.

Ritter's untapped earning potential merits such an abnormally high sum, Yasbeck's lawyer says, especially considering he had recently found sitcom success again with ABC's 8 Simple Rules.

The Emmy winner was on the set of his new show when he became dizzy and experienced nausea and chest pains.

He arrived at St. Joseph's emergency room at about 6 p.m. Various tests were run and, at first, doctors at figured that Ritter had suffered a heart attack and administered anticoagulants, a standard mode of treatment.

When they tried to insert a cardiac catheter, however, Ritter's condition deteriorated and doctors discovered a preexisting condition—sizable aortic dissection, or, a tear in the aorta, which is the largest blood vessel in the body. The condition can be fatal if the aorta ruptures or blood flow is blocked to the coronary arteries.

Attempts to revive him failed and Ritter was pronounced dead at 10:48 p.m. No autopsy was performed.

He died on his daughter Stella's fifth birthday and a week shy of both his 55th birthday and his fourth wedding anniversary.

Yasbeck says she was told afterward that nothing could have been done to save the former Three's Company star.

"The doctors told it to me like I was five, and I told it to her like she was five," she said. "The truth is, it's a lot more complicated and it's a lot more sad."

While the hospital was cited the following month by state regulators for various lapses in care, including the failure to take the chest X-ray that had been ordered by an ER doctor, lawyers for the specialists who remain in the crosshairs maintain that Ritter's heart was a ticking time-bomb.

"I really, really believe that for whatever reason, John Ritter's time was up," Lotysch's attorney, Stephen C. Fraser, told the Times. Yasbeck's camp claims that the radiologist should have noticed Ritter's enlarged aorta when he gave him a full body scan in 2001 at HealthScan America.

"I'm comfortable that a reasonable juror would understand that Dr. Lee was between a rock and a hard spot and had to make a judgment call," added lawyer John McCurdy, who represents the cardiologist.

Yasbeck's attorneys are arguing that the chest X-ray probably would have revealed Ritter's enlarged aorta and surgery could have been performed immediately. The issue at hand is whether doctors jumped the gun by treating him for a heart attack and whether his symptoms were pointing definitively in that direction.

As for the unusually large chunk of change Yasbeck is asking for, she told the Times that the upcoming trial will be about more than money. She'll handle the inevitable digging that the defendants will do into her finances and Ritter's health, she said.

"It's never comfortable, but the idea of the awareness that this brings to the issue trumps that," the actress said. "My discomfort is nothing compared to people who are losing their family to aortic dissection. I can be uncomfortable for however long the trial goes. I'm ready."

Copyright 2008 E! Entertainment Television, Inc. All rights reserved.

Whether Amy wins or not (I'm sure it's not a money issue) I'm just glad she is moving on with this and continuing to have it investigated and kept in the media. She can't bring John back, but maybe it will help save some lives in the process. John would be proud of her.

Whether Amy wins or not (I'm sure it's not a money issue) I'm just glad she is moving on with this and continuing to have it investigated and kept in the media. She can't bring John back, but maybe it will help save some lives in the process. John would be proud of her.

I couldn't agree more. She wants to make sure that other people don't have to go through this and I think that's very noble of her. I agree that John would definately be proud of her.

You know, I read stories about how John would go out of his way to help people when he was alive. And he's still going out of his way even in heaven. I read a story in Woman's World and this woman heard about John's story and went to go get herself checked out, if she not had gone, she wouldn't be here now! Incredible.

I'm just curious that why is she doing this all of a sudden now? John's death was very sad and unexpected, but when your times up, it's up. If you look at the last 8SR episodes before his death, you could see he was not a well man, his weight had ballooned and he was looking tired. People forever hold the image of Jack Tripper in their memory when they think about John, but he looked somewhat ill at the time of his passing.

I feel for Amy and their daughter (and Jason and the other kids he had from his first marriage) but sometimes there's nothing you can do to stop it from happening.

It is not all of a sudden. They have been in a battle with them since late 2003. They settled with the hospital in 2004. One process at a time.

It's all about money. They're asking $64 mil in a wrongful death suit... that is absolutely absurd.

I like this L.A. Times article, btw: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-me-ritter24jan24,1,1753799,full.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

It's all about money. They're asking $64 mil in a wrongful death suit... that is absolutely absurd.

I like this L.A. Times article, btw: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-me-ritter24jan24,1,1753799,full.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
I agree. She's already received $14 million in wrongful death, why does she need $64 million more?

^Greed. She can't adjust to a new lifestyle or the neighbors must be talking.

if she's that hard up for cash, why not start acting again? According to her IMDB, she's only done a few guest appearences since John's death. She was decent on Wings, surely somebody would hire her.

I can't believe what I'm reading ohno: It has nothing to do with money, it's called Justice for crying out loud!

I can't believe what I'm reading ohno: It has nothing to do with money, it's called Justice for crying out loud!
Amy's already received $14 million over this. $14 million is not exactly chump change.

If you look at it with objectivity and not fixate on the fact that you loved him on Three's Company, you can understand why a lot of people think Amy's just being greedy (check out the IMDB boards as well, a lot of people are calling her a gold digger). If John Ritter wasn't a beloved tv actor, but a construction worker or something and died the same way, the widow likely would've never even seen $14 million, and she would've taken the "pitiful" settlement and been fine with it.

What exactly do you consider justice if you think $14 million isn't anywhere enough to satisfy what you think Amy deserves?

Though it does seem like an excessive amount of money, I dont' think that's the reasoning behind all of this. Amy and the whole family seem like genuinely good people. I'm sure there's more to the case that many of us don't even know about and she's just trying to fix it. And like Pavan said, this has been going on since right after he died. It's not like she can't get over it.

I can't believe what I'm reading ohno: It has nothing to do with money, it's called Justice for crying out loud!



Exactly! People are already assuming that she's going to keep every dime she wins. Did anyone ever think that she may well use it to build a centre for heart patients or research, etc.? Give a gal a break and a chance here folks. Amy has never striked me as the type to be a gold digger. She was gorgegous and probably could have landed a lot more wealthy man in Hollywood than John was.

While John was well off, lets face it, he wouldn't have been in any "Tom Cruise" category, etc.. She's been living that lifestyle just fine thank you.

I've read articles about this since the beginning and this was her plan all along when it came to light that there was some negligence on the side of the hospital. John had only been to his doctor a week or two before. If he was looking so ill as you say, then the doctor should have picked up on that more than a fan wouldn't you think?

As for the exorborant amount of the case, the lawyers do that - it explains what John's earning ability could have been and calculates in other punitive damages. They rarely get the full amount and know that going into court. Believe me, that's why it costs doctors a fortune in insurance costs.

Though it does seem like an excessive amount of money, I dont' think that's the reasoning behind all of this. Amy and the whole family seem like genuinely good people. I'm sure there's more to the case that many of us don't even know about and she's just trying to fix it. And like Pavan said, this has been going on since right after he died. It's not like she can't get over it.

With a small child left behind and him dying so young after seeing his doctors - I don't think I'd be ready to let go either. I'll never judge a widow. To me, she's seeking the truth and justice and I don't blame her one bit.

It's all about money. They're asking $64 mil in a wrongful death suit... that is absolutely absurd.

I like this L.A. Times article, btw: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-me-ritter24jan24,1,1753799,full.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
You have to register to read the article. Is there any way you can copy and paste it here? Thanks.

I agree. She's already received $14 million in wrongful death, why does she need $64 million more?

It explains that in two places in the article posted. His earning potential - especially with residuals over the years? He'd have earned that no problem.


That's the standard for wrongful death suits for anyone.

personally, I can understand why Amy received her $14 million and realized it doesn't make her miss John any less or "replace" him. But truth be told, Bill Gates could give her his entire savings and Amy is still going to miss her husband. That sort of thing just doesn't get replaced by money.

If Amy wants to become a spokesperson for aortic dissection, then that's great. For those who say it's not about money, pu-leeze. It may not be ALL about money, but this woman is suing everyone and their mother. Dean's right, if Ritter wasn't famous, it wouldn't have even gone this far.

How much money (that Amy doesn't care about) will make her feel better? I was all for the first settlement, but this is greed, pure and simple. Amy's doing this for public awareness? I guess I missed Amy's PSA for this. Is the money going to the John Ritter Foundation for Prevention of Aortic Dissection? There's no John Ritter foundation, far as I know. I loved John Ritter, but I know greed when I see it, widow or not.

It explains that in two places in the article posted. His earning potential - especially with residuals over the years? He'd have earned that no problem.


That's the standard for wrongful death suits for anyone.
Maybe, not sure about that. My husband's sister sued and won a wrongful death suit. Her husband's cancer was misdiagnosed. She got a lump sum. He was a master electrician, making 80 grand a year. He was 44, which means he had at least another 20 years of working. Those lost wages never came into play.

Maybe, not sure about that. My husband's sister sued and won a wrongful death suit. Her husband's cancer was misdiagnosed. She got a lump sum. He was a master electrician, making 80 grand a year. He was 44, which means he had at least another 20 years of working. Those lost wages never came into play.


Boy they should have Janice! They sure do up here - they even pro-rate.

Boy they should have Janice! They sure do up here - they even pro-rate.
In retrospect, she should have, but not so sure it's automatic everywhere. One positive thing was that it was determined that his cancer was cause by Agent Orange, as he had served in Vietnam. She got a big settlement for that. It was her second marriage, his first. They had two little girls, ages 4 and 5. I couldn't believe it. He died in 1993.

I'm reading some of the 900 reader comments on AOL. Here's a few, that support my viewpoint, of course, lol.

08:22:33 PM Jan 25 2008
My late husband had the same diagnosis and died in the same manner. He was a professional fire chief. I also sued. I settled for 75,000 dollars. The lawyers and judge said I would not do any better in front of a jury. I don't blame Mrs. Ritter for suing at all, but how different her restitution is then mine. My husband spent his life saving other people....how was his life less valuable?

08:27:22 PM Jan 25 2008
I think this is ridiculous. If these celebrity people can sue hospitals and doctors for supposedly "wrongful death" , then why aren't WE ALL doing it to EVERY doctor and hospitals?
I think celebrities just gets away with a lot of things that's off the wall. Ritter's wife already got 14 million from the hospital..isn't that enough? She still torturing her husband even in his death by using his name to get MORE money. Geez....let your husband rest in peace greedy woman.
Non-celebrity people doesn't get or ask for a dime when their loveones die at a hospital or from a doctor's care. I mean, if she can get away with this, then why can't we?
Don't get me wrong, I like John Ritter and watched his shows. I'm just perplexed at some "celebrity" people using their status to drain money out of other people. Just plain greedy.

08:23:52 PM Jan 25 2008
Hey guys, just remember, what she has received already,a nd what she may receive, they only get back by raising our rates. We lose, not the doctors or insurance companies, US, the ones paying the premiums. UGH, no ones life is worth 64 million. Sorry, but wrongful death or not, she got 16M already. Enough is enough. Give my pocketbook a break. I actually have to work for a living to pay for my insurance. I don't have a husband to live off of.

08:23:35 PM Jan 25 2008
Gee.....is it Amy Yasbeck or Amy YasBUCK?

08:39:13 PM Jan 25 2008
Medicine never has and never will be an exact science. Most healthcare workers do what they do because they feel as though they are doing something to help mankind. I can assure you that we do not go into health care so that we can work weekends, nights, holidays, take call, and miss our children's activities. All healthcare workers are human. There is a huge difference in missing a heart defect that is hard to detect vs. true incompetence. Unless changes are made and made quickly the average person is not going to be able to afford even minimal health care. One of the reasons, and there are many, is these lawsuits for a ridiculous amount of money. I have been in healthcare for over 30 years and I can say with absolute certainty that I have never seen a doctor, nurse, technologist, or technician not put the patient first. People are leaving the health care field in droves and colleges are having a hard time attracting young people to the field.

08:35:31 PM Jan 25 2008
The first time I heard about Amy Yasbeck's lawsuit a few years ago I thought the same thing that I do now with this new lawsuit: MONEY. If she and her daughter have already received 12 million dollars there's no need to keep sueing for more. She's already inheriting royalties from his work with "Three;s Company," made-for-television movies and other short-lived series that he did, so if she's afraid of being left out on the street I think she can relax now. But the fact that she's sueing for more money only shows the American public that she's greedy.

You got enough, lady.

08:20:03 PM Jan 25 2008

14 million should cover it, and then some. These outrageous malpractice suits are a good share of the reason our health care costs have skyrocketed. These people end up w/millions of dollars in their pockets, leaving the general public suckers holding the bag. Glad you people who think she should get 67 million can afford it. I sure can't.

08:19:08 PM Jan 25 2008
It's greed and her having the $$$ to spend on a lawsuit that ordinary Americans couldn't even think of. My brother died in a hospital 12 hours after he arrived there of septic shock -- all because they took too long to determine what type of bacteria was in his bloodstream and because while they waited, they never gave him a single bit of antibiotics. Are we angry at the poor care he got -- HECK YES!!! Can we afford the time and effort and cost of a lawsuit -- NO!!

John Ritter's widow can and some big lawyer is willing to take on this case because of who she is and who he was. My family, meanwhile, just mourns the loss of a family member.

08:14:50 PM Jan 25 2008
She probablyl has spent all the money. Now she is suing again. GREEDy GREEDY

08:16:01 PM Jan 25 2008
The heart condition John Ritter had is very rarely detected before somebody just dies. He had a defective aorta. Even if it had been detected, there would be no gaurantee they could have repaired it. It is usually so deteriorated that it would be like sewing cheese.

07:04:46 PM Jan 25 2008
Has anyone realized that it's a degree in the Art of Medicine, not the Science of? It's not exact. I understand that she's upset, and it's a shame he died, but when someone is relatively healthy many tests aren't done. Let's also remember that insurance companies prohibit a lot of testing that could be done. As for the money, the show was a success and I loved it, but it would have been short lived. This is excessive and I hope the jury realizes that.

Just shows that the more money you have to begin with, the more you have to work with to gain more. Amy's obviously got the money to retain legal counsel.

Unfortunately the average Joe doesn't have the resources, or time even since they're the working class to handle such suits.

Who knows.

I mean, hey - the money from the first two suits would certainly do me and a couple of kids if I had to. ;)

Just shows that the more money you have to begin with, the more you have to work with to gain more. Amy's obviously got the money to retain legal counsel.

Unfortunately the average Joe doesn't have the resources, or time even since they're the working class to handle such suits.

Who knows.

I mean, hey - the money from the first two suits would certainly do me and a couple of kids if I had to. ;)
Same here, lol. Don't get me wrong, Cathie. I'm not heartless. I know Amy suffered a devastating loss, but she got an extremely generous settlement. I think she's out of control, and is actually harming John's legacy. She comes off as greedy widow, to many. The comments I'm reading are easily 4 to 1 stating that.

I didn't know John, of course, but I can tell that this wouldn't be his style. The sky's the limit in sueing the pants off everyone, with her. With what she got, and what she's after now, that's over 80 million. That seems crazy to me. I don't think John would be this way. Amy's acting as if there was a conspiracy to murder John. From what I've read the doctor made a judgement call in an extreme emergency.

My friend's father lost both his legs, due to blood clots. He had them cut off from just below the knee on one, and just above in the other. The hospital was negligent in diagnosing him. The family got 400 grand. They didn't keep suing.

if someone i was close to died a wrongful death, i would sue too, but not for more money than i'd ever have any use for.

Same here, lol. Don't get me wrong, Cathie. I'm not heartless. I know Amy suffered a devastating loss, but she got an extremely generous settlement. I think she's out of control, and is actually harming John's legacy. She comes off as greedy widow, to many. The comments I'm reading are easily 3 to 1 stating that.

I didn't know John, of course, but I can tell that this wouldn't be his style. The sky's the limit in sueing the pants off everyone, with her. With what she got, and what she's after now, that's over 80 million. That seems crazy to me. I don't think John would be this way. Amy's acting as if there was a conspiracy to murder John. From what I've read the doctor made a judgement call in an extreme emergency.

I agree with you 100%

If anyone has AOL, there's a thread with over 1,300 posts. Here's more.

http://television.aol.com/news/story/_a/john-ritters-family-sues-over-his-death/20080124153909990001 (http://television.aol.com/news/story/_a/john-ritters-family-sues-over-his-death/20080124153909990001)

It saddens me that John Ritter will be remembered for the money grab of his family after his death. John was always such a positive person and this will cause that positive into a sad vision of a bunch of money grabbing relatives.

u cant bring him back, let him rest in peace.

I agree with all of the individuals that made the comments on this matter. .. Come to Texas where we are capped on punitive damages.

People with cardiac conditions can die even if they are properly diagnosed in a timely manner. I am sorry for his death, but sueing is not the right approach. What a message the family is sending. Money is the root of all evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This BS is why 47 million Americans cant afford health insurance

I am a nurse and unfortunately I have seen many cases the there was genuine malpractice but those usually do not result in suits. There are far more cases where tere was not any malpractice but the doctor's have been sued. What I think is the greater crime are the lawyers who do not do a good job of representing their clients and collect outrageous fees. Where does one go to right that wrong? You can not get an attorney to sue another attorney. However, there are doctors who sue doctors. JK from Florida

THIS IS TOTALLY INSANE AND TYPICAL HOLLYWOOD. IT MAKES ME SICK. I LOVED JOHN RITTER BUT THER IS NO WAY HIS WIFE DESERVES 67 FRICKIN MILLON DOLLARS. WHAT A GREETY -ITCH! LET THE MAN REST IN PEACE. THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD TODAY ARE THESE SUE HAPPY PEOPLE. SHE ALREADY HAS MORE MONEY THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON WILL HAVE IN A LIFETIME. I PRAY TO GOD THAT THE JURY WILL SEE THIS AND SAY NOT NO BUT HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

II think Ritter's widow should be sued.

This makes me sick!. If anything goes wrong, blame the doctor. That is exactly what is wrong with the rising costs of medical care. Everyone wants to SUE THE DOCTOR. My husband is a retired doctor and spent endless days and nights doing all he could to take care of his patients. He had to pay BIG malpractice costs, along with all the other doctors, because of these sue happy people. Some are legitimate and most are not. This $67 million is outrageous, this woman has been awarded $14 already. Sorry for her loss, but MANY people have lost their loved ones - who should be sued for all these loses. I am sick of the GREED among these lawyers that sue good doctors. They are not God and cannot work mircles to save evryone's life.

Why should she get such a large settlement, this will not change what John did to his body to weaken it. She already received quite a bit, did she plow through that and now need more? It's been almost 4 years, when is something final?

Too Bad - The B itch is only after the money!!!!!!!!!!!

i agree 14 million dollars is more than any of us would ever get if our loved one died in the same manner. It is very sad that the man died but he did and we are all going too one day in the not so distant future. 14 million is even too much..

Unfortunate? Yes! Worth an additional 67 millions dollars on top of the 14 million dollars she has already received? I don't think so! Be thankful you have received as much as you have and move on. Doctors are only as good as modern medical science and there are no guarantees. I would venture to say thousands upon thousands of other people have lost loved ones under similar circumstances and have been awarded NOTHING! It's sad to think what this country has sucumbed too. The all mighty dollar can buy you just about anything regardless of the nature of the crime...i.e. O.J., Phil Spector, Robert Blake, etc. In this case John Ritter's widow's greed actually has her believing she desreves more. Get a job like the rest of us and move on!

It is stupid lawsuits like this why the working class people can't get good insurance or medical treatment, the doctors and insurance companies are to busy worring about being sued if things don't go the patients way. Get real Amy Yasbeck, medicine is not nor will it ever be an exact science! If I was on that jury I would ask the court to file charges against you for wasting tax payer money!

I adored John, but his wife is pushing it a bit to assume that she can obtain an ADDITIONAL 69 million dollars due to his death. She, too, was an actress, but has yet to capture any decent roles in years. Sure, she can most likely use the money, but if we remember John's body weight prior to his death, we will remember the additional adipose tissue surrounding his abdominal area! As we all know, this in itself is ammunition for cardiac arrest or stroke. Drs can't be God...we must take a little responsibility for our own bodies!!!

Oh man this makes me mad. My doctor gave up her practice because of the ridiculous malpractice insurance rates she had to pay. She battled with herself daily to avoid becoming bitter and cynical because she was dedicated to the well-being of humanity while humanity was heartless and intolerant toward her and her colleagues. Sure doctors make mistakes and people die. But the majority of them are good, caring people doing their best and they are outgunned in this litiguous society we now live in.

I can not believe the "greed factor" at work here. One can sympathise with the family's grief. But this is not grief at work but pure greed. More than likely the family was talked into it by an attorney. If they really were motivated by grief they would add a caveat that any additional monies awarded would go towards medical research in Ritter's name. If they win it will be one more reason for super bright college students to stay away from the medical profession. Very very sad testimonial to the character of the people involved.

Practicioners in the health field are human and make mistakes. So who's fault is it really when Mr. Ritter and family did not get a 2nd or 3rd opinion when things still didn't seem perfect? Only now, after years and years have gone buy... and money starts to run out, do we go looking for some way to exploit the situation. This is a disgusting way to honor your husband lady.


My father had Multiple Scherosis and was constontly being monitered in every way. He seemed to be doing well and was 67 when he died in one day of an anyorism of the heart-which I believe John Ritter died of. The doctors really are unable to diagnose in advance -its a silent killer and strikes from nowhere. There is a symptom of yawning a lot and tiredness-but we all thought it had to do with his M.S. My dad never smoked and was a Forest Ranger-healthy lifestyle prior to M.S.

SO whats up with taking monies away from the hospital and sueing, does she need the money for diamonds and botox , people are dying from starvation everyday-his wife is ridiculous.

OMG...you must be kidding. 14 million is more than enough no matter what happened. How can his wife justify what he could have made?? Who's to say if he got better again, he wouldn't have died a week later in a car accident? Why haven't wives sued drunk drivers who have killed their husbands for the potential earnings they could have made in a lifetime? Whose to say their husbands wouldn't have landed a million dollar job somewhere and made millions too? How the hell can you sue for something that might or might not happen...and 67 million?? Get the f*** outta here!!! Go back to work like the rest of us. I don't think your family will have any more closure or any less of the wonderful($$) life they have already had. Give me a damn break!!!

I agree with you 100%
We finally agree! ;) I do believe that this lawsuit, not the first one, is tarnishing John's memory. Giving the Ritter name a black eye, in my opinion.

I think so too. I don't know anyone who didn't think Amy was entitled to some compensation after losing her husband so suddenly and tragically, but isn't $14 million enough? Makes you wonder if she squandered that money and is going broke. Amy can be awarded all the money in the world but it's never going to bring John back.

when did the Wrongful Death Suit happen.

I honestly don't know what to think...it's just sad all the way around. :(

If Amy wants to become a spokesperson for aortic dissection, then that's great. For those who say it's not about money, pu-leeze. It may not be ALL about money, but this woman is suing everyone and their mother. Dean's right, if Ritter wasn't famous, it wouldn't have even gone this far.

How much money (that Amy doesn't care about) will make her feel better? I was all for the first settlement, but this is greed, pure and simple. Amy's doing this for public awareness? I guess I missed Amy's PSA for this. Is the money going to the John Ritter Foundation for Prevention of Aortic Dissection? There's no John Ritter foundation, far as I know. I loved John Ritter, but I know greed when I see it, widow or not.

Same here, lol. Don't get me wrong, Cathie. I'm not heartless. I know Amy suffered a devastating loss, but she got an extremely generous settlement. I think she's out of control, and is actually harming John's legacy. She comes off as greedy widow, to many. The comments I'm reading are easily 4 to 1 stating that.

I didn't know John, of course, but I can tell that this wouldn't be his style. The sky's the limit in sueing the pants off everyone, with her. With what she got, and what she's after now, that's over 80 million. That seems crazy to me. I don't think John would be this way. Amy's acting as if there was a conspiracy to murder John. From what I've read the doctor made a judgement call in an extreme emergency.

My friend's father lost both his legs, due to blood clots. He had them cut off from just below the knee on one, and just above in the other. The hospital was negligent in diagnosing him. The family got 400 grand. They didn't keep suing.

I couldn't agree with you more. No amount of money is going to bring John back, the way I see it. And suing for a ridiculous amount of money is not necessary for awareness of the condition.

Doctors may be lifesavers, but they're human too. They save people's lives whenever possible, but they're not perfect. It's not like they wanted him to die. I'm obviously a huge John Ritter fan, and his death really upset me (and still upsets me), but I'm sure the doctors weren't plotting to kill him.

Woah, calm down, Janice.
Lee, I didn't write all that, lol. Those are quotes from another site that I copied and pasted.

If Amy wants to become a spokesperson for aortic dissection, then that's great. For those who say it's not about money, pu-leeze. It may not be ALL about money, but this woman is suing everyone and their mother. Dean's right, if Ritter wasn't famous, it wouldn't have even gone this far.

How much money (that Amy doesn't care about) will make her feel better? I was all for the first settlement, but this is greed, pure and simple. Amy's doing this for public awareness? I guess I missed Amy's PSA for this. Is the money going to the John Ritter Foundation for Prevention of Aortic Dissection? There's no John Ritter foundation, far as I know. I loved John Ritter, but I know greed when I see it, widow or not.
:clap You said exactly what I was going to say.

We finally agree! ;) I do believe that this lawsuit, not the first one, is tarnishing John's memory. Giving the Ritter name a black eye, in my opinion.

Those are my sentiments as well. His family's actions are seriously hurting his image.

Anyhow... here's the L.A. Times article you wanted to read.



http://www.latimes.com/images/standard/lat_logo_inner.gif
Ritter's family says he didn't have to die
By Charles Ornstein, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 24, 2008

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-01/34894670.jpg
Amy Yasbeck, widow of John Ritter, at her home in Beverly Hills. Yasbeck is suing two doctors who treated her husband.

Lawsuit faults the care the actor received from two doctors. They say they did nothing wrong.

Comic actor John Ritter died on his daughter's 5th birthday in September 2003. The next day, his widow, actress Amy Yasbeck, told the girl that her dad's death was unavoidable.

Since then, Yasbeck has come to believe the story she told their daughter Stella was wrong.

"The doctors told it to me like I was 5 and I told it to her like she was 5," Yasbeck said in an interview with The Times. "The truth is, it's a lot more complicated and it's a lot more sad."

Early next month, in response to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Yasbeck and Ritter's four children, a Los Angeles County jury will be asked to decide: Did Ritter have to die?

Lawyers for the plaintiffs fault the care Ritter, 54, received from two doctors -- one who interpreted the results of a body scan he had in 2001, the other who treated him the night he died.

Defense attorneys say their clients did nothing wrong and that Ritter would have died no matter what doctors did.

The trial will feature high-stakes legal questions, celebrity cameos and dueling medical opinions by researchers who have written books on the arterial condition that killed Ritter.

Besides the medical issues, the proceeding probably will delve into sensitive areas for Hollywood bosses: how much successful television stars are worth and how that question is settled in contract negotiations.

It also will highlight how differently malpractice lawsuits play out when the alleged victim is wealthy. Ritter, best known for his starring role as Jack Tripper on "Three's Company," was an actor with tremendous earning potential, the plaintiffs' lawyers say. Because of his subsequent success on the series "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter," his family is asking for more than $67 million in damages -- a stratospheric sum compared with most such claims.

The family already has received more than $14 million in settlements, according to court records, including $9.4 million from Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, where he died.

No one disputes that doctors at St. Joseph treated Ritter as if he were having a heart attack. Both sides agree that his true condition -- an aortic dissection, which is a tear in the largest blood vessel in the body -- was not identified until right before his death.

Lawyers for the two remaining defendants, radiologist Matthew Lotysch and cardiologist Joseph Lee, say Ritter was doomed by his own biology.

"I really, really believe that for whatever reason, John Ritter's time was up," said Stephen C. Fraser, who represents Lotysch.

Yasbeck, Ritter's second wife, who married him in 1999, said the doctors missed signs of her husband's condition until it was too late to save him.

The trial is about more than money, she said. As is typical, none of the hospitals, doctors or other entities that have settled with the family have admitted guilt or said they were sorry. Yasbeck said she wants a public accounting of what happened.

"You can't treat my kid's dad for something and kill him in the process," she said.

"I think the money will show how angry the jury will be about what happened to John and what could happen to them."

Illness on the set

On Sept. 11, 2003, Ritter was on the set of "8 Simple Rules" when he experienced sudden nausea and vomiting, according to documents. He felt faint and had chest pain. At about 6 p.m., he went to nearby St. Joseph.

An emergency room doctor ordered tests, including a chest X-ray, and prescribed aspirin and anti-nausea medicine, records show.

Around 7:15 p.m., a test showed abnormalities that the doctor thought were consistent with a heart attack. Lee, who was on call, was at Ritter's bedside at 7:25 p.m.

Lee ordered anti-coagulants, which are standard treatment for a heart attack, although they can exacerbate symptoms of an aortic dissection. He also quickly planned a cardiac catheterization. During the procedure, Ritter's condition worsened and a large aortic dissection was found.

Attempts to save Ritter failed, and he was pronounced dead at 10:48 p.m. No autopsy was performed.

Aortic dissection, which can be fatal if the artery ruptures or blood flow is inhibited to the coronary arteries, is notoriously difficult to diagnose. At issue in this case is whether Ritter's symptoms were more consistent with a heart attack or an aortic dissection.

The month after Ritter died, state regulators faulted the hospital for lapses in care, including its failure to perform a chest X-ray ordered by an emergency room doctor.

Had Lee obtained a chest X-ray, the plaintiffs' lawyers and their experts say, it probably would have shown that Ritter had an enlarged aorta. With that information, he could have been taken to surgery and saved, they said.

Lee's lawyers point to Ritter's ominous vital signs and say Lee did not believe he had time to order more tests before taking him for a catheterization to remove possible blockages. They note that patients with chest pain are about 100 times more likely to be suffering a heart attack than an aortic dissection.

"I'm comfortable that a reasonable juror would understand that Dr. Lee was between a rock and a hard spot and had to make a judgment call," said John McCurdy, Lee's lawyer.

The family's lawsuit also calls into question the care Ritter received two years earlier, at another facility.

Although he believed himself to be in good health, his wife said, he had received a body scan at HealthScan America to look for abnormalities.

The plaintiffs say radiologist Lotysch should have noted that Ritter's aorta was enlarged then. Defense experts say it wasn't.

Lucrative contract

If a jury finds the doctors at fault, it will have to place a dollar value on Ritter's life.

At the time of his death, Ritter had a seven-year contract with Touchstone Studios that called for him to receive $75,000 per episode of "8 Simple Rules" in the first season -- with 5% raises every year. Assuming the series remained on air, he would have received up to $14.7 million, plus residuals.

Representatives for Ritter and Touchstone had started -- but not completed -- discussions on renegotiating the contract. A Touchstone executive said in a deposition that Ritter would have earned "between $250,000 to $350,000" per episode under a new contract and that he would have received a share of syndication profits.

That would equal at least $67 million if the show had lasted seven seasons.

Most malpractice plaintiffs never even come close to pressing such large claims. Damages for "pain and suffering" are limited to $250,000 in California. Typically, those who receive larger payouts can prove substantial economic damages, such as ongoing medical expenses or lost earning capacity.

Fraser says the Ritter family's claim is based on pure speculation. "They assume a very, very rosy scenario," Fraser said. "It might as well be $1 billion. Who could afford to pay a judgment like that?"

In any case, he said, "How many millions more do millionaires . . . need?"

Moses Lebovits, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Ritter's wealth should not be an issue. "The role of the judicial system and the role of the jury is to do justice, regardless of the wealth of either side," he said.

Yasbeck said she knows the trial will provide a public airing of Ritter's health and potential wealth and attract plenty of media attention. She said she hopes it also will bring awareness to aortic diseases.

"It's never comfortable, but the idea of the awareness that this brings to the issue trumps that," she said. "My discomfort is nothing compared to people who are losing their family to aortic dissection. I can be uncomfortable for however long the trial goes. I'm ready."

charles.ornstein@latimes.com

reading the article SBTB posted and other things regarding the subject, I think this lawsuit seems to be a giant case of "what if". People can waste their entire lives dwelling on "what if"'s. The world mourned John's death and Amy and Stella were robbed of their husband and father, but from everything they have said about this condition, all the surgery in the world might've not been able to save him.

Those are my sentiments as well. His family's actions are seriously hurting his image.

I don't think so. He has nothing to do with this. People will still remember him for his work, kindness and how he passed. I never got a chance to meet him, but we have had contact indirectly and he went out of his way for me, so I know first-hand about his kindness.

As for he could have been saved, yes it is true, he could have. The doctors misdiagnosed him even on the day it happened. There have been numerous stories of late of how people with the same condition survive because of John's story (here are a few: http://www.legacy.com/GB/GuestbookView.aspx?PersonId=1391524 http://www.thehj.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=32&ArticleID=12518&TM=76786.02). It just wasn't meant to be for John, unfortunately...which makes me sad and mad. Because John was famous, his story has spread and has saved other lives. I have gotten various links over the years from people who survived. So people who are commenting on this lawsuit article just now, I am sure have not read a single article or heard about what has gone on before. They see a dollar amount and take it they are using the money all for themselves. Do they also know that Amy personally calls everyone she hears about who has the same condition?

In 2004 the John Ritter HDSA Humanitarian Leadership Award was created because Amy, Jason and the rest of the family knew how close he was to that foundation. John was very close to a few organizations and Huntington's Disease is one of them. He was also close to the Cerebral Palsy foundation, as I'm sure everyone knows.

And Amy is using the money to create a foundation in honor of John's name. Please read:
The Daily Journal received a call from actress Amy Yasbeck Friday in response to the Dec. 6 article about the Peterson family performance in Fergus Falls Sunday. Yasbeck is the widow of actor John Ritter, who died from an aortic dissection in September 2003. Patty Peterson, a member of the performing family, experienced the same condition this spring, her life saved by staff at the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis. Yasbeck, who has a Google alert for her husband’s name, read The Journal article about the Petersons and contacted the newspaper for more information on the family. She said she plans to start a foundation under her husband’s name and is always on the look-out for people who’ve suffered from the same heart condition. Yasbeck, who herself has starred in movies like “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” and sitcoms like “Wings,” said she will keep The Journal posted as the foundation takes shape...

I don't think so. He has nothing to do with this. People will still remember him for his work, kindness and how he passed. I never got a chance to meet him, but we have had contact indirectly and he went out of his way for me, so I know first-hand about his kindness.

As for he could have been saved, yes it is true, he could have. The doctors misdiagnosed him even on the day it happened. There have been numerous stories of late of how people with the same condition survive because of John's story (here are a few: http://www.legacy.com/GB/GuestbookView.aspx?PersonId=1391524 http://www.thehj.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=32&ArticleID=12518&TM=76786.02). It just wasn't meant to be for John, unfortunately...which makes me sad and mad. Because John was famous, his story has spread and has saved other lives. I have gotten various links over the years from people who survived. So people who are commenting on this lawsuit article just now, I am sure have not read a single article or heard about what has gone on before. They see a dollar amount and take it they are using the money all for themselves. Do they also know that Amy personally calls everyone she hears about who has the same condition?

In 2004 the John Ritter HDSA Humanitarian Leadership Award was created because Amy, Jason and the rest of the family knew how close he was to that foundation. John was very close to a few organizations and Huntington's Disease is one of them. He was also close to the Cerebral Palsy foundation, as I'm sure everyone knows.

And Amy is using the money to create a foundation in honor of John's name. Please read:
The Daily Journal received a call from actress Amy Yasbeck Friday in response to the Dec. 6 article about the Peterson family performance in Fergus Falls Sunday. Yasbeck is the widow of actor John Ritter, who died from an aortic dissection in September 2003. Patty Peterson, a member of the performing family, experienced the same condition this spring, her life saved by staff at the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis. Yasbeck, who has a Google alert for her husband’s name, read The Journal article about the Petersons and contacted the newspaper for more information on the family. She said she plans to start a foundation under her husband’s name and is always on the look-out for people who’ve suffered from the same heart condition. Yasbeck, who herself has starred in movies like “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” and sitcoms like “Wings,” said she will keep The Journal posted as the foundation takes shape...
I knew there was more to this. Amy doesn't strike me as a money hungry person. Good for her for what she's doing.

These articles like to say 1/2 the story. I have always noticed that. It is unfortunate the good stuff only gets published locally, while if a dollar amount is in it, it gets national attention.

I don't think so. He has nothing to do with this. People will still remember him for his work, kindness and how he passed. I never got a chance to meet him, but we have had contact indirectly and he went out of his way for me, so I know first-hand about his kindness.

As for he could have been saved, yes it is true, he could have. The doctors misdiagnosed him even on the day it happened. There have been numerous stories of late of how people with the same condition survive because of John's story (here are a few: http://www.legacy.com/GB/GuestbookView.aspx?PersonId=1391524 http://www.thehj.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=32&ArticleID=12518&TM=76786.02). It just wasn't meant to be for John, unfortunately...which makes me sad and mad. Because John was famous, his story has spread and has saved other lives. I have gotten various links over the years from people who survived. So people who are commenting on this lawsuit article just now, I am sure have not read a single article or heard about what has gone on before. They see a dollar amount and take it they are using the money all for themselves. Do they also know that Amy personally calls everyone she hears about who has the same condition?

In 2004 the John Ritter HDSA Humanitarian Leadership Award was created because Amy, Jason and the rest of the family knew how close he was to that foundation. John was very close to a few organizations and Huntington's Disease is one of them. He was also close to the Cerebral Palsy foundation, as I'm sure everyone knows.

And Amy is using the money to create a foundation in honor of John's name. Please read:
The Daily Journal received a call from actress Amy Yasbeck Friday in response to the Dec. 6 article about the Peterson family performance in Fergus Falls Sunday. Yasbeck is the widow of actor John Ritter, who died from an aortic dissection in September 2003. Patty Peterson, a member of the performing family, experienced the same condition this spring, her life saved by staff at the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis. Yasbeck, who has a Google alert for her husband’s name, read The Journal article about the Petersons and contacted the newspaper for more information on the family. She said she plans to start a foundation under her husband’s name and is always on the look-out for people who’ve suffered from the same heart condition. Yasbeck, who herself has starred in movies like “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” and sitcoms like “Wings,” said she will keep The Journal posted as the foundation takes shape...


Thank you! :clap

I've been reading comments on the Internet since this story broke, AOL, Yahoo and various message boards. Amy's greediness is hurting John's image. From what I'm reading, public sentiment is not on her side. That's a fact. Many fans of John's fan are angry. A similiar thing happened when Ted Williams died, and his kids acted like vultures, having his head cut off and having him frozen, then fighting over his money. It made my husband crazy, because he loved Williams and hated the negative publicity. Not everyone is on board with Amy. The thread on AOL has 2,500 posts now, most of them slamming her, at least 90% of them anyway. She never struck me as a money hungry person until now. It's a shame. She'll probably get the money. Celebs usually win out in court.

This is one of those issues where people have their own opinion. Some think she wants over 80 million to help others, while other people think she's being greedy. Nobody's inside her head, so all we do is speculate on her motives. When I hear that kind of money, I think greed. I think it's an obscene amount of money.

Those are my sentiments as well. His family's actions are seriously hurting his image.

Anyhow... here's the L.A. Times article you wanted to read.
Thanks for the article. It was very interesting, and revealing. :)

Do these AOL posters know what Amy has done for people who suffered from the same condition and that she is forming the John Ritter Foundation of Aortic Health? These people probably have not read up on anything else what she has done. So who cares what they say...they are not experts. Don't believe that it is in the works? It is up on the board right now:
http://www.oami.europa.eu/en/office/newsletter/07005.htm#BOA2

She has also read up on this subject (http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1920.html) and has spoken in public places about it.

Again the media, is only telling half the story. You need to read more for the whole story, but most people in the country need things fed to us to know.

Do these AOL posters know what Amy has done for people who suffered from the same condition and that she is forming the John Ritter Foundation of Aortic Health? These people probably have not read up on anything else what she has done. Don't believe that it is in the works? It is up on the board right now:
http://www.oami.europa.eu/en/office/newsletter/07005.htm#BOA2

Again the media, is only telling half the story. You need to read more for the whole story.
That's a weird link. I don't doubt that Amy is for raising public awareness. Most foundations are funded by corportations, private individuals, and sometimes government money. If Amy wins, I doubt she's forking over her own dough. If she does, I'll eat my words, but my gut tells me no. It's taken her long enough to start one. Could be to offset the negative publicity.

Weird link? I was proving the board has received the proposal finally. Go back to my previous post...I added some other material. The Foundation has been in the works since 2005 so it has nothing to do with the recent lawsuit. It is a long process and takes time to finish. You said before she hasn't done anything for awareness or started a foundation, which wasn't true. Like I said, these articles are only telling 1/2 the story that is why most people do not know what she is doing. It is obvious you didn't know either, so judgment can't be taken on her with just the lawsuit side of the story. She has done a lot and will do a lot in the future, too. She will use most of the money for the foundation and other aortic health causes.

Yes, that was a strange link. I never saw one like that before. I stated earlier that it probably wasn't ALL about the money. Remember her when your insurance premiums are through the roof. It's people like her that make doctors afraid to practice medicine. We're entitled to our opinons. You have yours, and I have mine. If she wins that money and uses it towards the cause, I'll change my mind. Until then, greedy widow, to me and many others.

I still think when it comes to celebrities, a lot of people have a hard time looking to it with objectivity. I mean, John Ritter was that guy you loved on Three's Company and Eight Simple Rules. If this was some other guy who wasn't famous and his widow was acting the same way, you'd be rolling your eyes.

I still think when it comes to celebrities, a lot of people have a hard time looking to it with objectivity. I mean, John Ritter was that guy you loved on Three's Company and Eight Simple Rules. If this was some other guy who wasn't famous and his widow was acting the same way, you'd be rolling your eyes.
The reason this aggravates me is because I LOVED John Ritter, and I hate to see this become party of his legacy.

The reason this aggravates me is because I LOVED John Ritter, and I hate to see this become party of his legacy.
I doubt it'll hurt Ritter's reputation, only Yasbeck's. Courtney Love and Yoko Ono are hated by millions for things they've said or done but people still love Cobain and Lennon (tho I hope this doesn't turn into another Lennon discussion, lol). People can usually differentiate the widow and the deceased.

Pavan, I'm not looking for an argument, but yes, that link was strange to me. Then the part about John Ritter is equally strange. I can't make heads or tails out of it. Am I reading the correct section?

Procedural issues
Examination proceedings – communication – Nice classification - Decision of the President - correspondence not received – internet – time limit – failure to provide evidence – notification – burden of proof

Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 26 March 2007 in Case R 130/2007-2 (English)
R 0130/2007-2 THE JOHN RITTER FOUNDATION FOR AORTIC HEALTH – en – i n the present case, the Office transmitted a notice of the requirement to amend, within two months of receipt of such notice, the classification of the application's services. That notice was recorded on the Office's files as having been sent by ‘e-comm.' (i.e. by MYPAGE). It was also given a mail identification number by the Office (46295515). The applicant claimed that it never received the communication. It further asserted that it had ‘difficulty with the service' provided via MYPAGE and ‘subsequently cancelled that subscription'. Rule 82 CTMIR enables the OHIM to communicate with parties by electronic means and sub-paragraph (2) thereof provides that the President of the Office is to determine the requirements, equipment, technical details and methods of such communications. The determination by the President of the details of communications notified by technical means is further underscored by Rule 65 CTMIR. By Decision No EX-04-6 of the President of the Office of 14 December 2004 concerning notification by technical means, the Office was given the option to communicate with consenting addressees by MYPAGE, an electronic direct access through the Internet, to the subscriber's mail box (‘MyMAILBOX'). Placing a communication in MyMAILBOX, is by analogy to Rule 64 CTMIR, equivalent to notification, regardless of whether it is subsequently viewed or not by the addressee (see fifth recital and Article 2 of Decision no EX-04-6). In such circumstances, actual notification is deemed to have occurred on the fifth day following that on which the document was placed on MyMAILBOX (Article 2(2) of the aforementioned Decision). From the documents on file, there is nothing to suggest that on the relevant day, or during the five days following that date, the subscription to MYPAGE had been cancelled or malfunctioned. More particularly, the applicant had not adduced any evidence, such as copies of the log of e-mails sent and received relating to the days concerned (see, Joined Cases T-380/02 and T-128/03, at paragraph 84). In view of the uncertainties surrounding the applicant's allegations and their unsubstantiated character, the Board could only conclude that the communication in question was validly notified five days after it was placed on the applicant's MyMAILBOX. It follows that the Office was entitled to reject the application in accordance with Article 28 CTMR and Rule 9(4) CTMIR for failure to comply with the deadline specified therein. The case is to be remitted to the examiner for examination of the restitutio in integrum request.
Appeal proceedings - measures to comply with judgment - fixing of costs – reasons of equity - application refused in other proceedings

I doubt it'll hurt Ritter's reputation, only Yasbeck's. Courtney Love and Yoko Ono are hated by millions for things they've said or done but people still love Cobain and Lennon (tho I hope this doesn't turn into another Lennon discussion, lol). People can usually differentiate the widow and the deceased.
Not his reputation, his legacy. John Ritter's reputation is solid, and he's beloved by millions. Yet, who needs a widow filing lawsuits for outrageous amounts of money. It becomes part of his story, his legacy, just as what happened to Ted Williams became part of his legacy. Just my opinion.

Maybe, not sure about that. My husband's sister sued and won a wrongful death suit. Her husband's cancer was misdiagnosed. She got a lump sum. He was a master electrician, making 80 grand a year. He was 44, which means he had at least another 20 years of working. Those lost wages never came into play.
Generally, when one receives a lump sum settlement, they are choosing not to sue or ask for any other monies, whether it is lost wages, future medical costs (for those who suffered an injury but didn't die), etc. That is why when you read or hear on the news abt someone getting a lump sum settlement, you will also note at times there are not many details given abt that settlement. Both sides sign a document stating what they are receiving and what they are giving up by receiving that settlement. It sounds like Amy settled for a lump sum with the doctor(s), but that still left other players in this sad game for her to sue. My opinion, with Amy's status in Hollywood, John's legacy and reputation and many celebrity friends, I am sure Amy could develop a foundation WITHOUT having to sue for millions from the remaining people in this lawsuit. Just MO.


When I received my lump sum settlement from my employer for my back injury, I did that knowing I couldn't sue for more $$$ or receive or ask for future medical care, lost wages, etc. I settled because I wanted the hassle of my lawsuit over with. I was tired mentally and physically and needed to get bills paid. Being a paralegal, I knew my options and came out very good financially.

Hey Miss Irene, I've missed you! I thought you went away again, for one of your mini-vacations, lol.

Another thing to consider is that this all varies from state to state. Some states put a cap on the dollar amount.

Hey Miss Irene, I've missed you! I thought you went away again, for one of your mini-vacations, lol.

Another thing to consider is that this all varies from state to state. Some states put a cap on the dollar amount.
You are correct. I tried to get to the point on this matter as it seems there are many aspects to try and cover and I did forget to mention that part. I tried to generalize. ;)

Anyhoo, I do agree there is more that can be done by Amy with all that energy rather than sue the pants off every Tom, Dick and Harry. Like I said, she has contacts, USE THEM.

Anyone remember Paul Michael Glaser's late wife, Elizabeth? She formed the Pediatric AIDS Foundation after she and her children were diagnosed with HIV. She was known as his wife and she used her Hollywood contacts to help establish the foundation that to this day is stronger than ever. Her memory will never die because of her hard work. I think Amy can do the same.

Well, this is not a done deal yet. If she gets the money, I'm sure she will use it for the foundation and other methods of research. Until then, you can't judge. I'm not saying it isn't a lot of money, all I'm saying is she is not doing it all for the money. 67 million is a bit too much indeed..and she probably won't get that much. She has gone out of her way to inform and help people.

As for the board notice, it is in law lingo, so I can't tell you what it is. All I know is that is the board reading the proposal.

Pavan, I'm not looking for an argument, but yes, that link was strange to me. Then the part about John Ritter is equally strange. I can't make heads or tails out of it. Am I reading the correct section?

Procedural issues
Examination proceedings – communication – Nice classification - Decision of the President - correspondence not received – internet – time limit – failure to provide evidence – notification – burden of proof

Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 26 March 2007 in Case R 130/2007-2 (English)
R 0130/2007-2 THE JOHN RITTER FOUNDATION FOR AORTIC HEALTH – en – i n the present case, the Office transmitted a notice of the requirement to amend, within two months of receipt of such notice, the classification of the application's services. That notice was recorded on the Office's files as having been sent by ‘e-comm.' (i.e. by MYPAGE). It was also given a mail identification number by the Office (46295515). The applicant claimed that it never received the communication. It further asserted that it had ‘difficulty with the service' provided via MYPAGE and ‘subsequently cancelled that subscription'. Rule 82 CTMIR enables the OHIM to communicate with parties by electronic means and sub-paragraph (2) thereof provides that the President of the Office is to determine the requirements, equipment, technical details and methods of such communications. The determination by the President of the details of communications notified by technical means is further underscored by Rule 65 CTMIR. By Decision No EX-04-6 of the President of the Office of 14 December 2004 concerning notification by technical means, the Office was given the option to communicate with consenting addressees by MYPAGE, an electronic direct access through the Internet, to the subscriber's mail box (‘MyMAILBOX'). Placing a communication in MyMAILBOX, is by analogy to Rule 64 CTMIR, equivalent to notification, regardless of whether it is subsequently viewed or not by the addressee (see fifth recital and Article 2 of Decision no EX-04-6). In such circumstances, actual notification is deemed to have occurred on the fifth day following that on which the document was placed on MyMAILBOX (Article 2(2) of the aforementioned Decision). From the documents on file, there is nothing to suggest that on the relevant day, or during the five days following that date, the subscription to MYPAGE had been cancelled or malfunctioned. More particularly, the applicant had not adduced any evidence, such as copies of the log of e-mails sent and received relating to the days concerned (see, Joined Cases T-380/02 and T-128/03, at paragraph 84). In view of the uncertainties surrounding the applicant's allegations and their unsubstantiated character, the Board could only conclude that the communication in question was validly notified five days after it was placed on the applicant's MyMAILBOX. It follows that the Office was entitled to reject the application in accordance with Article 28 CTMR and Rule 9(4) CTMIR for failure to comply with the deadline specified therein. The case is to be remitted to the examiner for examination of the restitutio in integrum request.
Appeal proceedings - measures to comply with judgment - fixing of costs – reasons of equity - application refused in other proceedings
It appears there was an amendment of some sort to the proceedings and the above is merely putting on notice that one of the parties did not in a timely manner, produce correspondence, evidence, and/or notification per the time limit that is given.

Generally, if a party in a lawsuit does not produce certain document(s) in a timely manner (usually 5, 15 or 30 days, depending on the document) if it is not received on time, whether it is via snail mail, in person or facsimilie, and it appears in this case VIA EMAIL, then those documents can be rejected if proven the party did not get them out in time. It appears they are rejecting some application document based on the fact that it did not meet the 5 day requirement given to the party.

^ It's not judging, Pavan, it's having an opinion. I happen to be of the opinion that she's going overboard. If she gets it and gives it away, like I said, I'll eat my words. Nobody knows what she'll do with the money if she wins the suit, none of us. If she gave any of the 14 million away towards the cause, then that's an indication of her motives.

I'm usually pretty good at reading law lingo, but that one has me spinning, lol.

I'm usually pretty good at reading law lingo, but that one has me spinning, lol.

That is their purpose: TO GIVE US ALL A MIGRAINE! :crazy: :lol:

That is their purpose: TO GIVE US ALL A MIGRAINE! :crazy: :lol:
Now, if it's giving YOU, our legal eagle, a migraine, then God help us all. :lol:

Now, if it's giving YOU, our legal eagle, a migraine, then God help us all. :lol:
:rofl:

I'm leaving you in charge when I get those migraines. ;)

Pavan, I'm not looking for an argument, but yes, that link was strange to me. Then the part about John Ritter is equally strange. I can't make heads or tails out of it. Am I reading the correct section?

Procedural issues
Examination proceedings – communication – Nice classification - Decision of the President - correspondence not received – internet – time limit – failure to provide evidence – notification – burden of proof

Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 26 March 2007 in Case R 130/2007-2 (English)
R 0130/2007-2 THE JOHN RITTER FOUNDATION FOR AORTIC HEALTH – en – i n the present case, the Office transmitted a notice of the requirement to amend, within two months of receipt of such notice, the classification of the application's services. That notice was recorded on the Office's files as having been sent by ‘e-comm.' (i.e. by MYPAGE). It was also given a mail identification number by the Office (46295515). The applicant claimed that it never received the communication. It further asserted that it had ‘difficulty with the service' provided via MYPAGE and ‘subsequently cancelled that subscription'. Rule 82 CTMIR enables the OHIM to communicate with parties by electronic means and sub-paragraph (2) thereof provides that the President of the Office is to determine the requirements, equipment, technical details and methods of such communications. The determination by the President of the details of communications notified by technical means is further underscored by Rule 65 CTMIR. By Decision No EX-04-6 of the President of the Office of 14 December 2004 concerning notification by technical means, the Office was given the option to communicate with consenting addressees by MYPAGE, an electronic direct access through the Internet, to the subscriber's mail box (‘MyMAILBOX'). Placing a communication in MyMAILBOX, is by analogy to Rule 64 CTMIR, equivalent to notification, regardless of whether it is subsequently viewed or not by the addressee (see fifth recital and Article 2 of Decision no EX-04-6). In such circumstances, actual notification is deemed to have occurred on the fifth day following that on which the document was placed on MyMAILBOX (Article 2(2) of the aforementioned Decision). From the documents on file, there is nothing to suggest that on the relevant day, or during the five days following that date, the subscription to MYPAGE had been cancelled or malfunctioned. More particularly, the applicant had not adduced any evidence, such as copies of the log of e-mails sent and received relating to the days concerned (see, Joined Cases T-380/02 and T-128/03, at paragraph 84). In view of the uncertainties surrounding the applicant's allegations and their unsubstantiated character, the Board could only conclude that the communication in question was validly notified five days after it was placed on the applicant's MyMAILBOX. It follows that the Office was entitled to reject the application in accordance with Article 28 CTMR and Rule 9(4) CTMIR for failure to comply with the deadline specified therein. The case is to be remitted to the examiner for examination of the restitutio in integrum request.
Appeal proceedings - measures to comply with judgment - fixing of costs – reasons of equity - application refused in other proceedings
OK, could these people repeat this - IN ENGLISH??? :eek: :joke: :rofl:

John's brother Tom recently had a full body health scan and they found an aortic dissection (the same exact condition they didn't find at all in John until the day he died). He recently had surgery and had it removed and is now fine. Wow. John's story most likely saved him.

The Today show talked to Amy Yasbeck and they aired the story today:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22989512

John's brother Tom recently had a full body health scan and they found an aortic dissection (the same exact condition they didn't find at all in John until the day he died). He recently had surgery and had it removed and is now fine. Wow. John's story most likely saved him.

The Today show talked to Amy Yasbeck and they aired the story today:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22989512
OMG that is great that he found out. His life was saved for sure.

John's brother Tom recently had a full body health scan and they found an aortic dissection (the same exact condition they didn't find at all in John until the day he died). He recently had surgery and had it removed and is now fine. Wow. John's story most likely saved him.

The Today show talked to Amy Yasbeck and they aired the story today:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22989512

That video made me cry :crying: Thanks for sharing it Pav!

If it's not about the money, then we all better see a big chunk of this going to charities (particularly ones pertaining to heart diseases, you would think), otherwise she's blowing smoke. Actions speak much louder than words.

John's brother Tom recently had a full body health scan and they found an aortic dissection (the same exact condition they didn't find at all in John until the day he died). He recently had surgery and had it removed and is now fine. Wow. John's story most likely saved him.

The Today show talked to Amy Yasbeck and they aired the story today:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22989512

WOW! Good thing for Tom. I would say that's amazing but obviously it seems to be some sort of hereditary problem.

If it's not about the money, then we all better see a big chunk of this going to charities (particularly ones pertaining to heart diseases, you would think), otherwise she's blowing smoke. Actions speak much louder than words.

Watch the video Pav posted, it should answer that for you.

WOW! Good thing for Tom. I would say that's amazing but obviously it seems to be some sort of hereditary problem.
Yes, their father, Tex Ritter, died of a heart attack. I'm glad for Tom. He just dodged a bullet. As for Amy, we'll see if she puts her money where her mouth is. If so, I'll think she's wonderful. We'll see, if she's awarded the money, and what she does.

I wish John kept his weight down too. Not sure if it contributed to his death, but he didn't look healthy in the couple of years leading up to his death. I watch Three's Company now, and it's like watching a completely different person, to me. He was so handsome on that show, even at the end, in the mid-80s.

John looked exactly the same (as his Three's Company days) until about 1996 or so. He did put on some weight from 1997-2003, but he lost a bit of weight in 2002-03 when 8 Simple Rules got picked-up. That's the thing about middle age...once you get 50 or close to it, people tend to put on some weight as it is harder to lose the weight. John had a perfect line about his weight in 2003 on Jimmy Kimmel...if I can remember the exact quote, I'll post it. John always knew the right thing to say.

John looked exactly the same (as his Three's Company days) until about 1996 or so. He did put on some weight from 1997-2003, but he lost a bit of weight in 2002-03 when 8 Simple Rules got picked-up. That's the thing about middle age...once you get 50 or close to it, people tend to put on some weight as it is harder to lose the weight. John had a perfect line about his weight in 2003 on Jimmy Kimmel...if I can remember the exact quote, I'll post it. John always knew the right thing to say.
It was more than that. It was John's complexion or something. He didn't look healthy to me. I thought so, before he died. I may have posted about it here, not sure.

Watch the video Pav posted, it should answer that for you.

I can't seem to load it...of course, I'm probably the last person on Earth still using dial-up. :lol: I gather she says something about donating money for worthy causes? I hope so, because at least that wouldn't make her seem so greedy.

And my gut instinct is that the doctors likely meant no harm to John, so I have to feel a little sympathy for them as well (although not what I feel for John and his family).

It was more than that. It was John's complexion or something. He didn't look healthy to me. I thought so, before he died. I may have posted about it here, not sure.

I totally agree; in fact, when I was watching 8SR with my sister (I think it was when the show first started), I commented that he didn't look "healthy". There was just something about his appearance beyond being heavier that was kind of hard to describe, but you may have nailed it with "complexion."

I can't seem to load it...of course, I'm probably the last person on Earth still using dial-up. :lol: I gather she says something about donating money for worthy causes? I hope so, because at least that wouldn't make her seem so greedy.

And my gut instinct is that the doctors likely meant no harm to John, so I have to feel a little sympathy for them as well (although not what I feel for John and his family).

Yes, she plans on starting the John Ritter foundation to educate people about Aortic Disection.

I totally agree; in fact, when I was watching 8SR with my sister (I think it was when the show first started), I commented that he didn't look "healthy". There was just something about his appearance beyond being heavier that was kind of hard to describe, but you may have nailed it with "complexion."
Yeah, sort of bloated and puffy, especially in his face. I loved John, always will, but he was someone who I thought would age great. It had to be his illness. The poor man was a ticking time bomb.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22989512/

John Ritter’s widow talks about wrongful death suit

As trial opens, actress Amy Yasbeck says her husband ‘didn’t have a chance’

By Bob Considine
TODAYShow.com contributor

Comic actor John Ritter’s widow says a wrongful death lawsuit going to trial Monday is more about seeking accountability and educating the public about the condition that killed him than the $67 million in damages she is seeking from two doctors.

“I’m asking for responsibility to be taken and recognition to be brought to this problem,” Amy Yasbeck, an actress herself, told TODAY co-host Meredith Vieira in an exclusive interview that aired Monday.

Ritter, whose acting career spanned more than three decades, died of an undetected aortic dissection on Sept. 11, 2003.

His family has already received more than $14 million in previous settlements, including $9.4 million from Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, Ca., where Ritter died.

Yasbeck is now targeting two doctors in the current suit — one who interpreted the results of a body scan Ritter received in 2001 and another who treated him the night he died.

But defense attorneys for radiologist Matthew Lotysch and cardiologist Joseph Lee contend Ritter could not be saved from his genetics.

“I really, really believe that for whatever reason, John Ritter’s time was up,” Stephen C. Fraser, Lotysch’s lawyer, told the Los Angeles Times.

Yasbeck, however, feels the former “Three’s Company” and “8 Simple Rules” star would still be here with proper diagnoses.

“John didn’t have a chance,” she told Vieira. “He was never given that chance.”

Tragic day

Ritter was on set for rehearsals of “8 Simple Rules” on Sept. 11, 2003 — the fifth birthday of daughter Stella — when he experienced severe nausea and vomiting. He went to nearby St. Joseph’s at 6 p.m.

Yasbeck said Ritter felt badly that he was “ruining Stella’s birthday.”
“He was smiling at me,” she recalled. “And I said ... ‘I love you.’ ”

Yasbeck indicated that Ritter said “I love you” back with American Sign Language, which they had signed to each other during stage performances.

“And he held it as he went around the corner,” she said. “That’s the last time I saw him till I saw him dead, after he died.”

According to documents filed in connection with the case, Lee thought results of a test showed abnormalities consistent with a heart attack. The doctor ordered anticoagulants and planned a cardiac catheterization. But as the actor’s condition worsened, an aortic dissection — a tear in the largest blood vessel in the body — was found.

“I was sensing things were going on,” Yasbeck said. “And I heard ‘Code Blue’ … and a crash cart going and I'm like, ‘What the hell is going on?’ A doctor came to tell me that it was an aortic dissection, which I had never heard of.”

Ritter was pronounced dead at 10:48 p.m., stunning his family, fans and the Hollywood community.

California regulators faulted St. Joseph’s for failing to perform a chest X-ray during Ritter’s stay, which was ordered by an emergency room doctor.

Jury selection will begin Monday. Once the trial begins in earnest at Glendale Superior Court, attorneys for Yasbeck and the Ritter family are expected to contend that an X-ray would have shown an enlarged aorta, which would have resulted in emergency surgery.

Lee’s lawyers are expected to note that the doctor did not have time to order more tests beyond a catheterization to remove blockages — and the decision to order the catheterization was based on the extremely high frequency of heart attacks versus the very low frequency of aortic dissections.

Two years before his death, Ritter received a body scan at HealthScan America. Attorneys for the plaintiffs will say that Lotysch should have detected that Ritter had an enlarged aorta.

Killer disease

The American Heart Association describes an aortic dissection as when the inner layer of the aorta — the artery that carries blood from the heart to the rest of the body — splits open. It is likely to occur where pressure on the artery wall from blood flow is high.

Symptoms of acute aortic dissection include sudden chest pain, often described as severe and tearing, along with cold sweats and nausea. The peak age for males suffering from the disease is 50-55. Ritter was one week short of his 55th birthday when he died.

Aortic dissection strikes an estimated 10,000 Americans a year and is usually linked to high blood pressure and genetic disorders. One study reports an 80 percent mortality rate when aortic dissections result in rupture, with 50 percent of patients dying before they reach the hospital.

A 2006 study performed by an international team of heart specialists at the University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, however, showed that 90 percent of patients who survive emergency surgery and hospitalization from the most severe dissection will still be alive three years later.

The study stressed the importance of recognizing aortic dissection versus the diagnosis of a heart attack.

Yasbeck is also trying to promote awareness. After Ritter’s death, his older brother, Tommy, was diagnosed with the same condition.

“All of us said, ‘You know, Uncle Tommy, you gotta go get scanned,’ ” Yasbeck said. “They found it. It was in the exact same spot. He's living proof … He had his operation right before Christmas. And he is alive. And he is here for Stella and John's kids. And they know that their father's brother is alive because he had a chance.”

A funnyman’s career

Ritter was born into show business as the son of singing cowboy star Tex Ritter and actress Dorothy Fay. Although he started at University of Southern California as a psychology major, Ritter eventually caught the acting bug and joined a drama class — against his father’s wishes.

Ritter sharpened his acting chops in various stage performances in England, Holland, Germany and Scotland before graduating in 1971 with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in drama.

Guest TV appearances would come on shows like “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “Hawaii Five-O” and “M.A.S.H,” as well as a regular spot on “The Waltons.” But superstardom didn’t come until in 1977, when Ritter landed the role of affable ladies’ man Jack Tripper on the hit ABC sitcom “Three’s Company” in 1977.

During the show’s seven-year run, Ritter showed his versatility as a comic actor with an uncanny knack for pratfalls. Post-“Three’s Company,” Ritter starred in the short-lived series “Hooperman” in the late 1980s and “Hearts Afire” in the early 1990s.

Notable film roles came in 1990’s “Problem Child” — when he first met Yasbeck — and in 1996’s Academy Award-winner “Sling Blade.”
Yasbeck and Ritter married in 1999. (It was his second marriage.) They also played opposite each other on “The Cosby Show” in 1991 and in a 1996 episode of “Wings.”

While multiple television and film appearances kept Ritter in the public eye, his career enjoyed a major resurgence in 2002 as he played the starring role of Paul Hennessey in ABC’s family sitcom “8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter.”

It was during rehearsals of an episode during the second season of the show that Ritter collapsed.

Future earnings

The trial, which is expected to last six weeks, is also expected to circle around the very ambiguous subject of lost potential wages.

Ritter had a seven-year contract with Touchtone Studios that earned him $75,000 per episode in the first season of “8 Simple Rules,” with 5 percent raises annually. But Touchstone acknowledges there had been discussions on a renegotiated contract that would have earned Ritter between $250,000 and $350,000 per episode.

“Here’s what's interesting,” Yasbeck said. “(To) the media, it's like the family's asking for $67 million. That’s what John would have made over the rest of his lifetime.

“That number ... it’s sensationalized. I think it’s more sensational that his brother’s life was saved ... I know the money, if there's money from this, is going to start the John Ritter Foundation for Aortic Health.”

Yasbeck also added that future heart patients should refer to Ritter as a proactive way to determine whether they could have an aortic dissection.

“Walk in to your doctor and say, ‘Can you check me for that John Ritter thing?’ ” she said. “Please! People find it that way all of the time.”

While i loved John Ritter and was devastated when he died, i think 67 million is ridiculous. Well, if i'm hearing right, she already got 9 million already? If that's true then i think the 67 million part is just greed, because really, if one of our family members died from neglect, all we'd get from our hospitals is "whoops, sorry" and a bill in the mail next month. At least where i come from

I hope to God I am never in the position that Amy is in, where I feel that medical neglect costs me a beloved family member's life.

What I have always found startling (regardless of being in the law field) is how people bring up and ask for future earnings loss. Amy mentions how John, had he not died, would have earned a potential of $67 million dollars. Now, where does she have the ability to know that John would have earned that amount anyways? What if one day he had a car accident and died? What if he had a "normal" heart attack and died? What if he was injured in a car accident where he was at fault and became paralyzed and lost his acting job? What if suddenly the show was canceled? Would she have sued the producers for loss of earnings then?

Why isn't the video playing?

I hope to God I am never in the position that Amy is in, where I feel that medical neglect costs me a beloved family member's life.

What I have always found startling (regardless of being in the law field) is how people bring up and ask for future earnings loss. Amy mentions how John, had he not died, would have earned a potential of $67 million dollars. Now, where does she have the ability to know that John would have earned that amount anyways? What if one day he had a car accident and died? What if he had a "normal" heart attack and died? What if he was injured in a car accident where he was at fault and became paralyzed and lost his acting job? What if suddenly the show was canceled? Would she have sued the producers for loss of earnings then?

I was thinking that. People die everyday. Wives die, husbands die, fathers, moms, but what can we do? We can't just go around suing everyone. It's a part of life, it's the worst kind of pain, and the last thing i'd be thinking about is how much money i can make off my husband's death. Even if it is for a good cause, really, i dont see why she needs 67 million to make a difference.

I was thinking that. People die everyday. Wives die, husbands die, fathers, moms, but what can we do? We can't just go around suing everyone. It's a part of life, it's the worst kind of pain, and the last thing i'd be thinking about is how much money i can make off my husband's death. Even if it is for a good cause, really, i dont see why she needs 67 million to make a difference.


I stated on another page on this thread how she has the ability to get the star power to start up a fund and get this thing going. Celebs do it all the time. They have auctions, fundraisers, they get celebs in on their plans and to attend their fund-raising functions, they build up money and get things going for this foundation. No one can't tell me she doesn't have celebrity friends. I am sure Henry Winkler would be the first one to step up to the plate and be able to do this. How many non-celebs start foundations? Parents who have lost children to a murder or missing children foundations start out with help from the community and they branch out from there.

Exactly. I have no sympathy for this woman anymore though, after this news. She acts like she's the only person in the world who's lost their husband to an illness that probably really couldn't have been prevented. Just like anuerisms, blood clots, massive heart attacks....who's to say negligence DIDN'T play a part in this? Anyway, yeah, if she really cared, she'd have started this foundation LONG ago, since it's been years since he's died. This could be happening to like thousands of people right now and she's too busy worrying about her ridiculous lawsuit.

Wow, I had no idea that John's brother suffered from the same thing. I'm glad they were able to save him.

Sorry, I'm late and what I have to say is trivial, but I have to say it.

Ritter's "legacy", despite his own wishes, is his image taped and filmed. If the way he died has helped save the lives of other people, that's excellent (of course!!!), but it's not at all what he will be remembered for.

As for the lawsuit, that's between the participants, their lawyers, and their consciences.

Wow, I had no idea that John's brother suffered from the same thing. I'm glad they were able to save him.

I know. What John had and his brother is so scary though, he never knew what hit him. The human body has sooo many things that can happen to it and it's so unpredictable. I wish we can find a cure for everything like this.

While i loved John Ritter and was devastated when he died, i think 67 million is ridiculous. Well, if i'm hearing right, she already got 9 million already?
She got 14 million already. I wonder why if she put any of that money towards public awareness. I know it's chump change to the rich, lol, but it would certainly help the cause.

She got 14 million already. I wonder why if she put any of that money towards public awareness. I know it's chump change to the rich, lol, but it would certainly help the cause.
Exactly! At least a few million would be a great start to get this foundation going, if not, it can at least get some fundraisers started to help fund the foundation. Geez.

Some people are used to living the lifestyle they were brought up in or married into. I hate to think that is the issue with her, but I am beginning to think that may be the case. What is so wrong with living in a smaller home or living slightly different than she is used to? Like I said, how many people have suffered the unexpected loss of someone in their life and they had to deal with things such as a financial loss? Too many.

I have a cousin (who happened to marry my ex-husband's brother) and she was left a widow at the age of 29 when her husband passed away from pneumonia. They had just purchased a home two years prior. She was unable to keep that large home, so she sold it and bought a smaller one for her and her two kids. She also sold his 3 year old car. You do what you have to do to survive.

Exactly! At least a few million would be a great start to get this foundation going, if not, it can at least get some fundraisers started to help fund the foundation. Geez.

Some people are used to living the lifestyle they were brought up in or married into. I hate to think that is the issue with her, but I am beginning to think that may be the case. What is so wrong with living in a smaller home or living slightly different than she is used to? Like I said, how many people have suffered the unexpected loss of someone in their life and they had to deal with things such as a financial loss? Too many.

I have a cousin (who happened to marry my ex-husband's brother) and she was left a widow at the age of 29 when her husband passed away from pneumonia. They had just purchased a home two years prior. She was unable to keep that large home, so she sold it and bought a smaller one for her and her two kids. She also sold his 3 year old car. You do what you have to do to survive.


Yeah, and that dumb b**** is lucky enough to be getting 14 million so her and her daughter will NEVER ever need to work a day in their lives. Like i said, when non-celebrities like us lose someone to something similar to this, the only thing we get is the medical bills and funeral costs. The last thing we get is money to help us for it. Most of us have to start making serious life changes, and that usually means downgrading from the life we had with our spouse. I can't believe poor John Ritter's death is getting milked by her. Poor guy probably didn't know what he married. I don't care if she's doing it for a foundation or whatever, because i really don't believe that. People still manage to get foundations running without the millions and sometimes they get help from the public.

no offense, but I do think $67 million is a little over the top in expectant earnings. I mean, did John earn $67 million in his lifetime? He was getting older, his future post-8SR would've probably been tv guest appearences, plays and small roles in movies, much like how it was for the last decade of his life before he died.

He was a great comedic actor, but I think $67 million is a little bit of an overexaggeration of projected future earnings if he was only making $1-2 million a season on 8 Simple Rules. And unless he had a Jerry Seinfeld/Friends type of clause, I doubt he was seeing mega residuals off Three's Company reruns either. So where does $67 million come from? It's not as if he was Brad Pitt or George Clooney

no offense, but I do think $67 million is a little over the top in expectant earnings. I mean, did John earn $67 million in his lifetime? He was getting older, his future post-8SR would've probably been tv guest appearences, plays and small roles in movies, much like how it was for the last decade of his life before he died.

He was a great comedic actor, but I think $67 million is a little bit of an overexaggeration of projected future earnings if he was only making $1-2 million a season on 8 Simple Rules. And unless he had a Jerry Seinfeld/Friends type of clause, I doubt he was seeing mega residuals off Three's Company reruns either. So where does $67 million come from? It's not as if he was Brad Pitt or George Clooney
I am not sure, but I scanned the posts on this thread and I thought it was mentioned somewhere how Amy came to that figure of $67 million dollars.

I don't see it. Does anyone know how that figure came to be as far as a projected income that John would have received had he not died? Wasn't he receiving a nice sum from residuals from his work? Why would future earnings be a reason to sue, unless she was a pauper or left with enormous debt?


Also, I did read the part where Amy states it is not abt the money (yeah right) but how she wants to bring this whole aortic thing to the surface, give it attention for the sake of the public and their health. Ok so here is my comment then:

Would Amy be completely satisfied then if there were a telethon made for this condition? Would Amy be completely satisfied if these doctors got on some platform somewhere and spoke LOUDLY abt the day John was in their care and how they wished they could have had the foresight of his condition and saved his life? Would Amy be completely satisified if these doctors got the government to somehow establish a foundation in John's name and give free health screenings to people so they can be assured they don't have that condition? Would Amy be completely satisfied if these doctors who supposedly took her husband's life away (her words), offered FREE MEDICAL CARE TO THOSE WHO DO HAVE THIS CONDITION? OR offered FREE DIAGNOSIS FOR THIS CONDITION?

I DOUBT IT.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_en_ce/john_ritter_trial_4

Ritter's widow testifies about his death

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent Mon Mar 3, 9:36 PM ET

GLENDALE, Calif. - Sobbing into her hands, John Ritter's widow on Monday gave jurors in a wrongful-death trial a minute-by-minute account of events leading up to the actor's death in 2003. Amy Yasbeck sometimes could barely speak through her tears as she recounted the last hours in which she was summoned to a hospital and told her husband was having a heart attack and needed an angiogram.
ADVERTISEMENT

She said that Ritter, who was in a hospital bed, was "scared" and asked Dr. Joseph Lee, one of the two defendants in the lawsuit, if he could get a second opinion before he agreed to the procedure.

"Dr. Lee said, 'No, there's no time. You're in the middle of a heart attack,'" Yasbeck testified.

She said Lee asked Ritter to sign a consent form and read him its details.

Asked by her lawyer, Moses Lebovits, what happened next, Yasbeck broke into gasping sobs.

"I leaned down to John's ear and said, 'I know you're scared but you have to be brave and do this because these guys know what they're doing.' And he was brave for all the time I saw him," she said.

Yasbeck said that as Ritter was wheeled down a hall on a gurney he used sign language to say "I love you." She said she mouthed the same words back.

"He went around the corner and that's the last time I saw him," she said.

Ritter, 54, fell ill earlier in the day while working on the sitcom "8 Simple Rules ... for Dating My Teenage Daughter" and died of a torn aorta at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank. His family is suing Lee and a radiologist, Dr. Matthew Lotysch, who did a body scan on Ritter two years earlier, for $67 million.

The doctors deny wrongdoing. The radiologist has testified the aorta was normal in the scan but Ritter had coronary artery disease at a relatively young age.

Yasbeck told of the long wait to hear what was happening after Ritter was wheeled away, and of overhearing someone calling "code blue," which she recognized from an audition she had done for the show "ER."

Shortly after that, she said, a doctor who had arrived from the Disney studios came out and told her Ritter was "crashing" and that a surgeon had been summoned.

She said the doctor drew a picture for her and explained that Ritter's aorta had shredded and "it was a bad thing."

At some point — after she was joined by Ritter's ex-wife, Nancy Ritter, and their son Jason — the surgeon came to them.

"He said it was over and John's dead, that they worked on John for a long time but the damage was done by the time he got there. It was a fait accompli and John was dead," Yasbeck said.

Yasbeck then told of going home to tell her 5-year-old daughter, Stella, that her father had died. She waited until the next morning because the child was asleep.

Asked by her lawyer to tell jurors what Stella lost with Ritter's death, she said, "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 when it came to child rearing, "I really was dependent on him. I was 36 years old. He was so freaking wise about this stuff. And Stella, every day she wakes up and there's a new way to miss her father. I can't make up for that. It's a new road to face every day."

The testimony was offered in part to demonstrate to jurors the devastation suffered by the family from the loss of Ritter. In the courtroom audience, his brother, Tom, wiped his eyes.

Nancy Ritter, who was married to the actor for 19 years, also took the stand and testified about his importance to their three children and his decision to have a complete body scan two years before he died.

She said she urged him to do it and when it was over he told her it had gone well.

"He implied to me that he was reassured he was OK. Maybe he was protecting me," she said.

The plaintiffs rested their case after Yasbeck's testimony and the defense opened its presentation with a brief appearance by Ritter's personal trainer, who said the actor was concerned about improving his health and was working out regularly.

The current lawsuit follows settlements with the hospital and eight other medical personnel for about $14 million.

There's also a video here http://abcnews.go.com/ you'll have to search for it because I can't find a direct link. It's heartbreaking to hear his last words and how unaware he was of how sick he was. :(

I'm not judging Amy. She seems like an amazing person and knows far more about this than we do.

I heard his last words to her in that voicemail on ET tonight. It was heartbreaking to hear :(

I heard his last words to her in that voicemail on ET tonight. It was heartbreaking to hear :(

I know they were very sad to hear. The poor thing he even had a sense of humor when he was ill. :( If only he'd known, he thought he just had a regular case of the flu or something.

Video:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=6814058

thanks for The Video

the doctors were cleared. I am glad, John's death was a freak occurance and everything I've heard about it said that there was no way he could've been saved. Yasbeck just looked like a golddigger and I think she got hers. People are lawsuit-crazy, and she was probably one of the worst considering she couldn't just handle $15 million as a payout, and demanded $68 million for "future earnings" (let's face it, Ritter was well past his Three's Company days by the time he did 8SR, he was never going to earn another $68 million if he lived until 80) and Amy deserved being laughed out of court. $68 million won't bring John back.

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/tv-news-story/ar/_a/2-doctors-cleared-in-john-ritters-death/20080314150109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 (http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/tv-news-story/ar/_a/2-doctors-cleared-in-john-ritters-death/20080314150109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

2 Doctors Cleared in John Ritter's Death

(http://television.aol.com/news)
GLENDALE, Calif. (March 14) - A jury cleared a cardiologist and a radiologist Friday of negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of actor John Ritter, who died of a torn aorta in 2003.

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.

Attorney Stephen C. Fraser, who represented Lotysch, credited jurors with being sophisticated and intelligent.

"The system worked and we're very, very happy that they did the right thing," Fraser said.

Defense testimony characterized the aortic dissection as lethal and contended that even with surgery the outcome would have been the same.

When he died on Sept. 11, 2003, Ritter was starring in the TV show "8 Simple Rules ... for Dating My Teenage Daughter." He was 54.

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.

Defense testimony characterized the aortic dissection as lethal and contended that even with surgery the outcome would have been the same.

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.

Amy Yasbeck loses and Heather Mills only winds up with a measley 3% or so of Paul McCartney's money on the same day (even tho any judge with sense would've laughed Heather out of court and told her she doesn't deserve a dime of Paul's money, if Linda was still alive, none of this would've even happened). Nice to see these golddigging bitches are getting their comeuppance.

Paul is lucky they didn't marry and/or lived here in California. Half of what is his, would've been hers. So you can't say any judge in their right mind would have laughed Heather out of court. Heather would be having the last laugh. Also, it goes to show there are some instances where a pre-nup is necessary. Whether it is the man or the woman who has the money.

Paul is lucky they didn't marry and/or lived here in California. Half of what is his, would've been hers. So you can't say any judge in their right mind would have laughed Heather out of court. Heather would be having the last laugh. Also, it goes to show there are some instances where a pre-nup is necessary. Whether it is the man or the woman who has the money.
I honestly think Heather has some really bad karma coming her way for what she did to Paul, knowing that the world mourned with him through Linda's death, and then to see her do this to him knowing damn well that Linda never would've done this if she was alive.

I honestly think Heather has some really bad karma coming her way for what she did to Paul, knowing that the world mourned with him through Linda's death, and then to see her do this to him knowing damn well that Linda never would've done this if she was alive.
Linda was in her marriage for the long run. It appeared that Paul and Linda's marriage was a happy and blessed one. They seemed to be two young kids in love from the day they were married. They never talked negatively abt the other and we never heard any stories alluding to anything other than the fact those two were happily married. So, I doubt Linda would have done this to Paul because I can't see her ever having divorced Paul.

As for Heather, all I know is what has been printed, some of it I am sure is false and the remainder is court papers. Heather made allegations towards Paul. Only she and him know the truth. I never saw her as a gold-digger. I think she is angry abt something and she feels she is entitled to $$$$. Would people be saying this if she were married to Joe Smith from Nebraska who had a million dollar company and she divorced him and felt entitled to a portion of his $$$? I don't think so.

Funny, I always hated the character Amy played on Wings. Then when I heard she married John I figured she must have "something". I felt so horrible for her and the kids after his death and when she first brought this suit, was really, in her favour figuring maybe she was going to do something good with any monies gained for awareness or whatever. But through this, all she's shown is she is closer to that character that I hated than I thought.

Amy - believe me, you have no idea what it's like to be left penniless after you lose a man. Just be glad to have plenty to live on and send your kids to college and be able to lead a good standard of living. Then take all the energy and work you put into this lawsuit, move on and put it to good use - like just CAMPAIGNING for this to never happen again and stop blaming people who are human and tried their best. John would prefer it I'm sure.

Funny, I always hated the character Amy played on Wings. Then when I heard she married John I figured she must have "something". I felt so horrible for her and the kids after his death and when she first brought this suit, was really, in her favour figuring maybe she was going to do something good with any monies gained for awareness or whatever. But through this, all she's shown is she is closer to that character that I hated than I thought.

Amy - believe me, you have no idea what it's like to be left penniless after you lose a man. Just be glad to have plenty to live on and send your kids to college and be able to lead a good standard of living. Then take all the energy and work you put into this lawsuit, move on and put it to good use - like just CAMPAIGNING for this to never happen again and stop blaming people who are human and tried their best. John would prefer it I'm sure.

maybe now she and Heather Mills should do a reality show together called "$20 Million's Not Enough" :lol:

I am glad the jury didn't get swayed by emotions.

I was taken aback by a comment by Amy during the trial when she stated that after all this time, her daughter still deals with her daddy's death. Well, if you keep reminding her abt his death, rather than his life, maybe she can move on and be a happy child. My own mother passed away two weeks after my 6th b-day and I knew immediately she wasn't coming back. I wasn't told how horrible she suffered or how she shouldn't have died, etc. I was told that our mother had died and was in heaven. If Amy can't deal with his loss, she should get therapy. And if Amy put on this show on the witness stand, merely to get the jury to sympathize, shame on her.

I am glad the jury didn't get swayed by emotions.

I was taken aback by a comment by Amy during the trial when she stated that after all this time, her daughter still deals with her daddy's death. Well, if you keep reminding her abt his death, rather than his life, maybe she can move on and be a happy child. My own mother passed away two weeks after my 6th b-day and I knew immediately she wasn't coming back. I wasn't told how horrible she suffered or how she shouldn't have died, etc. I was told that our mother had died and was in heaven. If Amy can't deal with his loss, she should get therapy. And if Amy put on this show on the witness stand, merely to get the jury to sympathize, shame on her.


EXCELLENT point!! I don't have kids, but even I know you don't let your children deal with your adult problems and issues as a peer. I was raised that way and grew up waaaay too fast. Still messed up to a degree to this day because of that.

Found this article this morning:
I saw a segment(last ten minutes of it) on Larry King Live early this morning. He had on Amy Yasbeck speaking about John.

Amy was on Larry King on Friday and promoted www.johnritterfoundation.org and told the story. Here is the CNN transcript:


In 2003, the world lost actor and funnyman John Ritter. His family has been in court surrounding the circumstances of that death. John Ritter's widow, Amy Yasbeck, when LARRY KING LIVE returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE and a great pleasure to welcome Amy Yasbeck to this program. The widow of John Ritter. John died suddenly in September of 2003. God, that's five years.

AMY YASBECK, JOHN RITTER'S WIDOW: Oh my God, is that true?

KING: From a torn aorta. He became worldly known for his role as Jack Tripper in the smash hit "Three's Company." At the time of his death, he was working on his second season of the ABC sitcom, "Eight Simple Rules."

Last Friday a jury cleared a cardiologist and a radiologist of negligence in his death. The family claimed that John was misdiagnosed and was provided negligent medical treatment. He would have turned 56 the week he died.

How did you take the loss of the suit?

YASBECK: Well, the loss of the suit is nothing compared to the loss of your spouse.

KING: Naturally.

YASBECK: So things kind of... KING: Balance.

YASBECK: Balance, you put it into perspective. Our family is disappointed because we really believed that mistakes were made but what can I say? The jury has spoken.

KING: Did you poll the jury?

YASBECK: Did we poll the jury? You've got to talk to my lawyers about that.

KING: You didn't talk to any jury members? Because you can do that.

YASBECK: I did. I talked to a couple. You know, I basically deputized them all and said, now you know more about aortic dissection and aneurysm then most of the - any layperson you're going to meet, maybe besides me and a few doctors, unfortunately. So it's your job to go out into the world and spread the good news that this thing can be absolutely detected and fixed.

KING: Did they tell you why they voted against your reasoning?

YASBECK: I didn't really want to talk to them about that. I just wanted to tell them to go out and spread the word and they hopefully will.

KING: Were you shocked?

YASBECK: I was shocked because I know -- I know the truth of what happened and I know -- because I was there. I was there for a good long time with John. He was sitting up and joking and laughing without getting -- and flirting. Without getting too specific, there was time and I think that what everybody learned from this trial is you don't have to play the odds just because a heart attack is way more prevalent than an aortic dissection would be. If you don't know which one you're treating and you treat a heart -- well, you know...

KING: I had a heart attack.

YASBECK: I know, you can't...

KING: I had a heart attack, but what is...

YASBECK: Imagine if they treated you for an aortic dissection.

KING: What is an aortic dissection?

YASBECK: An aortic dissection is -- OK, your heart is not really this big but your aorta goes up, all the way down to this, right? It's that main artery from the heart and a heart attack is a blockage in your heart, which is what you had.

KING: Cutting off the blood flow.

YASBECK: Cutting off the blood flow. An aortic dissection is a shearing away of the inside of this very long artery. So it's a tear, the opposite of a block. So everything -- and it's not even your heart. So everything you do for a heart attack, doing a catheter, doing the blood thinners, all of that, deleterious effect to say the least to an aortic dissection, so there is ways to hedge your bets.

They can obviously do an X-ray and it shows -- it doesn't show -- you know what? It doesn't actually show the aortic dissection, it shows the widening of all the stuff. The mediastinum, all the stuff, and they go, oh, this isn't good, we can't treat for a heart attack. And then on the differential, it goes up, the aortic dissection and they start thinking it. You can't treat something you don't think about.

KING: But you have to do things you wouldn't ordinarily do. Like I had a heart attack and they didn't do any X-ray.

YASBECK: They didn't do an X-ray on you?

KNG: For a heart attack? No.

YASBECK: Well, you're lucky it was a heart attack. If it was an aortic dissection, you might be dead.

KING: Correct.

YASBECK: Correct. But there is other things you can do without even a X-ray machine. Twenty percent of the cases, because you know it's that arch, right, that comes out of your heart. And then there is the arteries that come up, the great vessels.

If it dissects inside and there's a flap, and it can do a thing where it blocks the blood flow to just one arm so if they do blood pressure and pulse in both arms, in 20 percent of the cases they go, oh my God, it's different blood pressures in both arms, impossible unless you're having an aortic dissection. That's 20 percent. The X- rays 60 to 90 percent. Hedge your bets.

KING: What happened that day? John was on the set.

YASBECK: Right.

KING: And what happened? Did he faint?

YASBECK: Well, I'll tell you one thing, he didn't - no. Everybody kept saying, no, Larry, he didn't collapse, which is what I kept hearing.

KING: What happened?

YASBECK: Well, I wasn't there, but from Katie -- not Katie Couric, who, by the way, is my idol, Katie Sagal and Henry Winkler who were there, he felt nauseous, he felt sick, which happens sometimes with an aortic dissection, things are moving around in there and the aneurysm is big and pushing on stuff. He felt nauseous and started having chest pains and so they took him across the street to the hospitals.

KING: Cedars?

YASBECK: No.

KING: What hospital?

YASBECK: It's called St. Joseph's hospital.

KING: St. Joseph's, yes. It's in the Valley.

YASBECK: That's where he was born. Mm-hmm.

KING: Right. And he was taken right across the street, that's right, there are television studio is right there.

YASBECK: Disney, yes.

KING: And did you get over to the hospital? Did you see him alive?

YASBECK: Oh yes.

KING: How long did he live?

YASBECK: Oh my God. I think I got there around 6:30 or something and he died at around 10:40. I spent in and out, I don't know, around a half an hour with him, maybe an hour there.

KING: And you were talking, he was sitting up?

YASBECK: Oh yes, he was sitting up and talking, it was Stella's birthday -- our daughter's fifth birthday. And he was bummed out that he was kind of like screwing up the birthday because we're going to come to some little thing at her school and then go home and let her stay up late and do birthday stuff. It just sucks. It could not suck worse.

KING: More in a minute. We'll be right back with more of Amy Yasbeck and the tragedy of the death of John Ritter. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN RITTER, ACTOR: Kyle! Open up! I know you've got both my daughters in there! Kyle!

(LAUGHTER)

RITTER: This place looks familiar.

(LAUGHTER)

RITTER: I should ask you the same question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you mean? We live together.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're talking about the late John Ritter with his widow, Amy Yasbeck. By the way, his most famous role, of course, was Jack Tripper on "Three's Company." That show lives on through reruns all over the world. Let's take a look at John as Jack. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOYCE DEWITT, ACTOR: Just let her fall!

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know your way around in barns.

RITTER: What's to know? A barn is a...

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: He was funny.

YASBECK: So funny.

KING: As I was telling Amy, I saw him do "The Dinner Party."

YASBECK: "The Dinner Party."

KING: Neil Simon's play in New York. He was hysterical.

YASBECK: He was hysterical. He looked good in that tux, didn't he?

KING: He was a great comedic actor and looked good. OK. Now you're sitting in the hospital with him. He's talking to you. Then what?

YASBECK: Well, everything got mixed up and crazy and he was treated for a heart attack.

KING: So he had gotten the pain, he went into...

YASBECK: No X-ray was done, he was treated for a heart attack, he died of an aortic dissection. The rest of that...

KING: Did they show you out into the corridor and have to come tell you?

YASBECK: Oh, yes, yes, yes. Yes, oh, just the whole freaking nightmare of sitting and waiting in that waiting room and time clicking on and then hearing code blue and knowing that that -- I just knew, there was nobody else there. It wasn't a crowded emergency room.

KING: Did he know he had any kind of a heart problem?

YASBECK: He -- I think he knew exactly what a lot of men know at that age, you've got to be careful. You've got to eat the right things and, you know, the usual.

KING: What led you to like -- I'm going to sue over this?

YASBECK: Because I felt that the way it was presented was that this was a very rare thing and nothing could be done and you can't see it and a lot of the literature about aortic aneurysm is like that. And right away, thank you, Google, I started educating myself and I found out not only is it detectable and treatable but it's also familial aortic dissection, the thoracic -- there's 20 percent of the cases at least are genetic.

Well, when your mom instinct kicks in, nothing can stop you for the rest of your life. So Stella got scanned, John's three big kids got scanned, they're all fine. John's brother, at my urging, got scanned, and they found, exactly where John's was, an aneurysm in his aorta.

KING: It has to go to a certain width before they panic, right? If it's a smaller width they don't do surgery. They wait until...

YASBECK: They can treat it, and it's different...

KING: ... it's like five...

YASBECK: Yes, go ahead. You know a lot.

KING: No, because I had an examination once and the guy said, you have a slight spread in your aorta. It's nothing. We'll check it every time we check you.

YASBECK: I am so on you for the rest of your life, you have no idea. OK?

KING: Yes. OK.

YASBECK: OK.

KING: But if it goes to a five they bring it -- they surgically go in.

YASBECK: Yes. I don't want to get specific about your aorta, but I will off the air, but it's different in the -- what?

KING: What do want to do to me? I'm fine.

YASBECK: All right. I'm just worried about you. Geez.

So -- and the foundation that I started in John's name...

KING: I'm going to ask about that in a minute.

YASBECK: You are? KING: Yes.

YASBECK: Good. So OK, let me talk about your aorta, then. There's the ascending, the arch and the descending. DeBakey A and DeBakey D - DeBakey B. You know, he said you can't treat something that you don't think about and he also named the different parts of it. And he's a brilliant guy, and there's lots of people in Dr. DeBakey's name that have gone into this field of vascular thoracic surgery.

And these guys are brilliant and we had them at the trial. Our side brought them and their side brought them and this debate was going on and I'm thinking, this needs to happen outside of here.

This needs to happen in my living room with these doctors with pictures of John around and they need to figure out the exact protocol because, you know, they differ just a little bit, like you're talking about, they differ by centimeters on that. They differ a little bit on the protocol of what you do because it's a medical orphan. There wasn't really a specialty for it.

KING: And your contention is they should have known?

YASBECK: My contention is they should have known.

KING: We'll be right back with Amy Yasbeck. We'll talk about the foundation she started and lots more, don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATIE SAGAL, ACTOR: I'm filled with love and sadness. You know, I miss him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actress Katie Sagal reminisces about her friend and colleague, John Ritter, the two co-starred on "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter."

RITTER: Because if you make her cry, I will make you cry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sagal told the jury they were rehearsing when Ritter became ill and began sweating profusely.

SAGAL: It's like somebody has put a bucket of water over his head.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even though she used the word "weird" to describe Ritter's appearance, she didn't think his condition was that serious because she says the 54-year-old didn't complain. Then again, she says, he never complained about anything.

SAGAL: And he was fine. I was -- that is what is so unbelievable about the whole thing, you know, that he went a hospital and six hours later he was gone.

(END VIDEO CLIP) JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: I'm John King in Washington. At the top of hour on "360," passports and presidential candidates. We now know all three candidates, Obama, Clinton, and McCain, had their passport records breached. Now we're asking who did it, why, and what could it mean? And we're starting to get the answers.

Also Bill Richardson's endorsement. He's picking Barack Obama, kind of a surprise since Richardson once worked for former President Clinton. But can it help Obama win?

We'll also dig deeper into those sermons from Barack Obama's former pastor. Roland Martin has listened to much more of the sermons than we've heard before and we'll let you hear it too. All of that at the top of the hour on "360." Larry King will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Amy Yasbeck. We're going to talk about the foundation in a minute and find out a little bit about John as well. But just days after he died, John's fellow actors came on this program. Here's a little bit of what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUZANNE SOMERS, ACTOR: It's such a loss. It really is such a loss. These people that drop into our lives and make us feel good, they have purpose and John had such a purpose. Everybody liked -- you won't find anyone you talk to who didn't like him. Everybody liked John.

DEWITT: He was so full of joy and love and so ready to play all the time and he could make fun out of anything.

HENRY WINKLER, ACTOR: The one thing that John was, was grateful. He loved what he did. He loved his children. He loved his wife Amy, and he loved his work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: What kind of husband was he?

YASBECK: I never saw that before?

KING: Why not?

YASBECK: Because I was, you know...

KING: Sad.

YASBECK: Face down on the bed and going, whatever, going, oy, and taking care of my baby.

KING: What kind of husband was he?

YASBECK: He was a brilliant husband. Absolutely brilliant. The most supportive person in everything I did. I mean, he was a wonderful partner.

KING: Was he funny?

YASBECK: He was so funny. And you know, it's like, you say, well, this, you always use humor to do -- but when John Ritter decided to use humor on your, you couldn't be sad, you couldn't be anything but deeply in love.

KING: Did you ever know his father Tex?

YASBECK: No.

KING: I interviewed Tex.

YASBECK: What the hell? Are you kidding me?

KING: On the radio in Miami in the '60s.

YASBECK: Oh my God. Did you tell John that? Did he know that?

KING: Sure.

YASBECK: Oh my God.

KING (singing): Do not forsake me oh my darling...

YASBECK (singing): ... on this our wedding day.

It's my singing debut. Hold on. Do not -- OK. They think -- now all of these geneticist who I know, Dianna Milewicz, oh my God, this geneticist, this woman at the University of Texas, they think possibly Tex, it was not a heart attack but died of aortic dissection.

And that's -- I mean, how many people do you know, sadly in your family and others that they just kind of clutch their heart, have chest pain and die, there is no autopsy, they are not in the middle of the surgery and they just put it in that cardiac category and I think the word that you and I use all the time, cardiovascular, it's kind of like cardio...

(whispering): ... vascular.

Not -- I prefer the cardio and vascular.

KING: It should be just as big. It's not.

YASBECK: Cardio. I want to say cardio and vascular.

KING: What kind of dad was John?

YASBECK: John was a kickass dad.

KING: Doting?

YASBECK: Doting and believed in giving kids the green light, the green light, the green light, whatever they wanted to do. And what's amazing to me is -- can I tell you one more thing real quick?

KING: Sure.

YASBECK: OK. You know Heath Ledger that passed away, I just heard that they're doing a movie, he was in the middle of the movie and the next part of it, three actors are taking over to do these three different roles.

KING: And it was all going to be him. But they have three different guys who are going to play...

(CROSSTALK)

YASBECK: Are going to play different facets of his personality. When I heard that last week or whenever, I went, my God, because John's four kids, Jason, Carly, Tyler and Stella, not to pigeonhole them, but in general, Jason is a brilliant actor, that's that part. Carly is getting her master's degree at a school of public service, that is that part of John. Tyler is a teacher teaching underprivileged children English, Kindergarten kids in Argentina, there is that part. And Stella is the ridiculously goofy but brilliant 9-year-old that lived inside of John. She is mine.

KING: The first three were...

YASBECK: From Nancy, yes.

KING: Were you close to them?

YASBECK: Those three kids? Oh, absolutely. I don't try to mother them. I've always been their friend. But yes, I am steppy, the stepmother. They like me. And they love their little sister Stella.

KING: How did they deal with John's passing? Each differently I would imagine.

YASBECK: Each differently except I lost my parents when I was their age, 19 and 20, my dad and mom. And so I could see that -- how hard that is -- you know, Stella had just been in Kindergarten for two weeks. Tyler had just been taken up to college, taken to the University of Pennsylvania by his dad and left there. And Carly was at Vassar, to be far away from your family, to get that news and have to make that sad journey home. Just a nightmare.

But they're awesome kids and they're so into this foundation and getting the word out. They talk about it to their friends.

KING: That's what I'm going to talk about next. We'll be back with more moments with Amy Yasbeck and the foundation, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Amy Yasbeck has started a foundation and if you want more information it's the johnritterfoundation.com. It's a foundation for aortic health.

Give me the genesis.

YASBECK: The genesis, after John died and I found out that aortic dissection was preventable and scannable and you know, you could kind of predict it and see it coming, I started getting Google Alerts so I would get -- read some 30 articles a day and I would track down the families of people who had survived and families of people who had succumbed to the disease.

And I spoke to them directly and there was articles in The Wall Street Journal, 10 articles that won the Pulitzer Prize by Kevin Helliker and Tom Burton that had so much information. And so I would illegally copy those, sorry Wall Street Journal or whatever, and I would send them to the people, then discuss and get them scanned.

So kind of on the down low I've been doing it. And then during the lawsuit I couldn't do the foundation out loud. But I've just been doing it one on one with families and families. And now the lawsuit is over, I did a Web site, I am pretty illiterate with the computer so I have people helping me. Purple was John's favorite color, so the Web site is all purple.

My goal, my dream, and it has already kind of happened, I did a speech at Yale, I didn't even graduate from college, I'm speaking at Yale. What is wrong with this world? I'm doing a speech at University of Texas. I just want doctors to be able to talk to each other and share information freely. No jealously guarding your information. I need everybody to talk to each other -- what?

KING: This is absorbing you.

YASBECK: You mean obsessing?

KING: Yes. Same thing.

YASBECK: I'm telling you, when it happens to you, when it happens to you and your family, I can be in a crowd of people and I go, whoa, I know a couple of them have an enlarged aorta, I want to just start seeing through people's chests, get those X-ray glasses, remember with the legs on the side, you buy them in the back of Mad Magazine, and just -- I'm dying to be able to help people live.

KING: Do people contribute to this too?

YASBECK: People will.

KING: But it is now informational, right?

YASBECK: Right now it's informational, feel free...

KING: If you go to johnritterfoundation.org, what will you get?

YASBECK: You will get -- and it's very kind of rudimentary right now. You get a purple home page with a beautiful picture of John that I have to copyright. And it's -- there are tabs up at the top and you can read Tom's story, John's brother, which is great.

I've got four letters from citizens, people who have been affected by John who literally have had their -- some of them had their lives saved by going in and going, before I leave, do you mind checking me for that John Ritter -- and they go, oh, crap, it's your aorta. Glad we didn't treat you for a heart attack.

It's happening every day. It's insane. And there is little information and there is a thing that you spit with the DNA and you send it...

KING: You're going to get a lot of rewards out of this.

YASBECK: I already am. I get to sit with you with no corned beef to separate us.

KING: I've got a cardiac foundation that helps people. You know what you're going to lead to?

YASBECK: What?

KING: Saving lives. And you're going to hear stories about...

YASBECK: You made me cry, Larry.

KING: ... saving lives and you're going to make John be alive. This is saving lives.

YASBECK: If this is an obsession...

KING: Let it be.

YASBECK: Let it be.

KING: Thank you, Amy. I'll see you at Nate and Al's next week.

YASBECK: Thank you, my friend.

KING: Amy Yasbeck, and again, it's the johnritterfoundation.org.

As always, head to our Web site, cnn.com/larryking. You've got me crying.