The serious health predicament facing Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts—Hurts has been diagnosed with a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and blood clots in his lungs—could spiral into a legal controversy, but don’t expect it to wind up in court.
The NFL–NFLPA collective bargaining agreement will likely keep any controversy away from judges and juries.
Hurts’ blood clots continue to raise questions about whether the Super Bowl-winning quarterback was placed at undue risk by being allowed to play and who is responsible for making those decisions.
Like athletes in other pro leagues, NFL players must first exhaust out-of-court arbitration and grievance procedures. Those procedures are expressed in CBAs and player contracts and are governed by confidentiality provisions. They’re powerful tools to keep potential evidence and testimony out of public view.
Hurts’ health
The Eagles and Hurts’ agent, Nicole Lynn, say Hurts suffered a DVT and bilateral pulmonary emboli. DVT occurs when a blood clot forms in a deep vein; a pulmonary embolism refers to a clot breaking loose and traveling through the bloodstream. Although these conditions are treatable, they can also be life-altering.
As the American Heart Association has detailed, blood clots and related conditions for athletes aren’t new, and athletes often recover. Tennis star Serena Williams, along with NBA stars Victor Wembanyama and Damian Lillard, have all been sidelined by blood clots and returned to competition. NBA star Chris Bosh wasn’t so lucky; due to recurring clots, he retired.
Hurts, 28, suffered a calf injury in the Eagles’ 24-20 loss to the Los Angeles Rams on Oct. 4, in which he played the entire game. He continued to have issues with his calf in the following days and received treatment from Eagles medical staff.
Hurts and his teammates traveled to London ahead of their Oct. 11 game against the Jacksonville Jaguars. On Oct. 10, an ultrasound of Hurts’ calf, which took place in London, revealed a superficial blood clot. Eagles’ medical experts determined that mobility was important, and Hurts could safely play against the Jaguars. Hurts threw for 220 yards and a touchdown in a 19-17 loss.
Hurts flew back to Philadelphia, and he continued to receive medical treatment. A follow-up ultrasound on Oct. 14 showed movement in the clot. Hurts was placed on injured reserve and is expected to miss the rest of the season.
Hurts is being treated with anticoagulants (blood thinners). The Eagles believe he’ll make a full recovery, but his condition has sparked concerns about his health and career.
NFL chief medical officer Dr. Allen Sills contends the Eagles’ doctors and trainers followed appropriate medical procedures. On Sunday, the NFL and the NFLPA issued a statement saying they’ll conduct a joint probe into the situation. If there’s a determination the Eagles erred, the NFL could punish the team.
CBA limits the opportunity for Hurts to sue
There are several relevant provisions in the CBA confining how Hurts, the NFLPA, the Eagles and the NFL respond.
Article 3, Section 2 substantially restricts lawsuits by the NFLPA and players against the league and clubs over matters addressed by the CBA. Generally, this provision contractually extinguishes the ability to bring claims to court. Over the years, Article 2 has made it difficult for NFL players to bring negligence lawsuits regarding concussions, painkillers and other ailments. That’s especially significant because a federal law, the Labor Management Relations Act, can preempt negligence claims when they depend on interpreting a CBA.
Hurts or the NFLPA might wish to sue the Eagles for negligence, alleging the team’s healthcare personnel worsened his condition by letting him fly a long distance and play in a football game. The Eagles might be depicted as having prioritized playing Hurts over his health.
The Eagles would substantively dispute the allegation and insist they wanted to protect their franchise QB. They would also raise a procedural argument: the CBA preempts a lawsuit and requires Hurts to use the grievance process instead.
The team could cite favorable precedent, including a 2023 case in which a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by former Denver Broncos linebacker Aaron Patrick. Patrick, who was injured when his cleats became tangled in TV cords, had to first seek redress through a grievance procedure before being able to pursue a lawsuit.
However, preemption doesn’t always work as a legal defense for NFL teams.
While the decision is something of an outlier, former NFL running back Reggie Bush was awarded $12.5 million from a St. Louis jury in 2018 in his negligence lawsuit over slipping on an uncovered concrete surface during a game in 2015. The Los Angeles Rams—which played in St. Louis’ Edward Jones Dome at the time of Bush’s injury—argued CBA preemption, but a state judge and jury weren’t persuaded.
Unpacking a potential Hurts grievance
Hurts, who has played his entire career with the Eagles, may not pursue action against his team. There’s optimism Hurts will have a full recovery and will return to the NFL field.
However, it’s unclear how Hurts feels about the situation and his team; he has not commented publicly on his injury. Should Hurts act, he’d likely file a grievance, which is a formal complaint that collectively bargained rights and contractual protections have been violated.
The CBA contains two types of grievances—one for injuries and the other for what are coined “noninjuries.” Even though Hurts suffered a playing-related calf injury and experienced health complications, an injury grievance wouldn’t fit.
Under Article 44, an injury grievance concerns a team terminating a player’s contract because he was allegedly unable to physically perform. The Eagles aren’t terminating Hurts’ contract, a five-year, $255 million deal that runs through 2028.
A noninjury grievance, which is detailed in Article 43, would be possible. Hurts could argue the Eagles failed to provide him adequate care as guaranteed by other CBA provisions.
Central to those provisions is Article 39, which requires teams to use “best efforts” to provide players “with high-quality medical care appropriate … consistent with professional standards for the industry.” Article 39 also contemplates an Accountability and Care Committee that helps to develop injury-surveillance systems and conducts investigations.
A noninjury grievance would involve discovery, meaning evidence and testimony by Eagles medical personnel. There could be debate about industry standards—including the risks of flying across an ocean with a blood clot—involving expert analysis. The grievance would be decided by a neutral arbitrator.
Key to a grievance would be whether the Eagles acted wrongly in treating Hurts’ injury and whether that failure worsened his condition and caused him to miss more time. It’s important to stress Hurts experiencing a health complication doesn’t prove the Eagles acted unreasonably. The operative issue is whether the complication was caused by substandard care.
To that point, in hindsight, there’s obvious reason to question why the blood clot wasn’t found sooner, why Hurts played with a blood clot and why he flew across the Atlantic with his condition.
But hindsight isn’t the legal test—it’s what was reasonable at the time.
Potential money damages
If Hurts could prove the Eagles erred, the next question is whether the error caused, or will cause, Hurts a financial loss. Section 8 of Article 43 of the CBA authorizes the arbitrator to grant a money award. If Hurts makes a full recovery and continues to be paid under his contract, his “loss” might be limited.
However, as detailed on Spotrac, Hurts’ contract contains bonuses that he’d lose the chance to earn by missing time. They include salary escalations of $500,000 for winning the NFL MVP award and for playing at least 70% of snaps in a Super Bowl win. Obviously, there’s no guarantee a healthy Hurts would win those awards.
If Hurts doesn’t recover from his blood clots, potential damages could be massive. Quarterbacks can play well into their 30s or even 40s, and starters are typically the teams’ highest-paid players. Because of their fame and recognizability, starting quarterbacks also attract endorsement deals.
Hurts, a former Super Bowl MVP, has signed several lucrative deals, including with Jordan Brand and Oakley. Sportico estimates Hurts earns about $6 million in endorsements. Whether Hurts would continue to land endorsement deals as a retired player would be a source of debate.
Finality and big-picture considerations
Arbitration is intended to be the last word. Article 43 says that “the decision of the arbitrator will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the grievance.”
It would be very difficult to challenge an arbitrator’s decision. The Federal Arbitration Act commands arbitration awards receive high deference and can only be vacated in limited circumstances, such as when the arbitrator engaged in fraud.
Should Hurts seek a grievance, it would be confined to his situation. Whether that situation sparks new policies about treatment of players with blood clots and reconsideration about flights and international travel would require negotiation by the NFL and NFLPA. Those discussions would take into consideration players and teams in general, not just Hurts.
But there’s no doubt that a player of Hurts’ profile facing a serious health predicament after being cleared to play with a blood clot will raise difficult questions about medical care, player safety and the NFL’s system for resolving those disputes.