Jalen Hurts Lawsuit, NFLPA Investigation Into Eagles’ Medical Care, Blood Clots and the Dismissed Court Case Explained

Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts is at the center of a player-safety controversy after doctors found blood clots in his leg and lungs. The questions center on why he played against the Jacksonville Jaguars on October 11, 2026 after specialists had identified a superficial clot in his calf.

Further testing later showed deep vein thrombosis and blood clots in both lungs, known as bilateral pulmonary emboli. Hurts is on injured reserve and expected to miss the rest of the 2026 season while on blood thinners. The NFL Players Association (NFLPA) demanded a full investigation, and on October 25 the NFL and NFLPA announced they were working together to review the matter.

There is an important legal distinction. As of October 31, 2026, no new medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Hurts against the Eagles, the NFL or any doctor has been identified. The current story is a medical and labor review, not a court case.

Separately, there is an older lawsuit that named Hurts as a defendant. A private plaintiff, Pshatoia LaRose, sued Hurts and the Eagles over unrelated allegations, and a federal court dismissed those claims with prejudice on March 13, 2026. That case has nothing to do with his blood clots.

Jalen Hurts Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Player	Jalen Hurts, Philadelphia Eagles quarterback, age 28
Medical issue	Deep vein thrombosis and bilateral pulmonary emboli
Initial injury	Cleat contact to left calf, October 4, 2026 (Rams game)
Initial clot diagnosis	October 10, 2026, in London (superficial vein thrombosis)
Game played afterward	October 11, 2026, vs. Jacksonville (Eagles lost 19-17)
Follow-up ultrasound	Wednesday, October 14, showed clot movement
Injured reserve	October 17, 2026
More serious diagnosis announced	October 19, 2026
NFLPA call for investigation	October 20, 2026
Joint NFL-NFLPA review announced	October 25, 2026
Governing agreement	NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Article 39
New malpractice lawsuit by Hurts	None identified as of October 31, 2026
Earlier lawsuit naming Hurts	LaRose v. Hurts, No. 4:24-cv-04843 (S.D. Tex.)
Earlier lawsuit outcome	Dismissed with prejudice, March 13, 2026
Current status	Review discussions ongoing; no finding of medical negligence

1. What Happened to Jalen Hurts?

October 4. Hurts was struck in the left calf by another player’s cleat during the Eagles’ game against the Los Angeles Rams. He kept playing.

October 8. According to the Eagles’ October 15 statement, Hurts told the medical staff after practice about the cleat contact and asked for treatment. He practiced in full that week and was added to the injury report.

October 10. The team traveled to London to play Jacksonville. After the flight, an ultrasound found a superficial vein thrombosis, a clot in a vein near the surface, in his left calf. The Eagles said their medical staff and physicians in London reviewed it and concluded Hurts could safely play, with a follow-up ultrasound recommended within 72 hours. The NFL said it had been in contact with the Eagles’ medical staff and the Cleveland Clinic in London throughout.

October 11. Hurts played in the 19-17 loss at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.

Some reports claimed Hurts went an extended stretch without sleep before the game. NFL executive vice president Jeff Miller called that “uninformed speculation,” said Hurts returned to the hotel and slept for several hours before going to the stadium, and the NFL disputed that anyone endangered him. There is no established evidence that anyone deliberately kept him from sleeping.

October 14 to 15. A follow-up ultrasound showed movement in the clot. The Eagles ruled him out against Carolina.

October 17. The Eagles placed Hurts on injured reserve.

October 19. The Eagles and Hurts’ agent, Nicole Lynn, announced deep vein thrombosis and bilateral pulmonary emboli. Deep vein thrombosis is a clot in a deep vein, often in the leg, and a pulmonary embolism occurs when clot material blocks blood flow in the lungs. The statement said he was clinically stable, receiving anticoagulation treatment, barred from contact football while on blood thinners, and expected to make a full recovery with no long-term effects.

2. Why Is the NFLPA Investigating?

The key question is not how Hurts developed clots. It is whether the medical decisions around his diagnosis, travel and clearance to play followed the applicable standards and procedures.

On October 20, the NFLPA said it was not aware of any NFL investigation and that the league had earlier told it no review was planned. Its statement said there must be a full investigation before conclusions are drawn, and that determining the facts is essential to ensuring players receive the highest level of care. The union’s request does not establish that anyone acted improperly.

Medical care is a core subject of the CBA. The union can raise complaints, request investigations into player safety and seek corrective action through established procedures.

3. What the NFL Said

NFL chief medical officer Dr. Allen Sills strongly defended the Eagles’ medical staff, describing their work as conservative, patient-focused and appropriately guarded at every step. He rejected the idea that any NFL physician would knowingly put a player in harm’s way. Commissioner Roger Goodell said the league welcomed a review and described its protocols as strong.

The Associated Press reported that a person familiar with the discussions said the Eagles were not being disciplined.

A serious outcome does not by itself prove the earlier decisions were wrong. A patient can suffer a serious complication even when providers followed the standard of care, and an investigation does not presume a mistake. The records and independent expert review are what matter.

Public commentary has been sharper. Former NFL players and media figures, including Shannon Sharpe and Mike Florio, have questioned the decision to clear Hurts. Commentators noted that unanswered questions could invite legal scrutiny but stressed that nothing had been filed. Commentary and criticism are not findings.

4. The NFL-NFLPA Joint Review

On October 25, 2026, the NFL and NFLPA issued a joint statement saying they were working together to review how Hurts’ diagnosis was handled. Front Office Sports reported the parties were still working out the process and that a formal investigation under Article 39, Section 5(f) had not yet officially begun.

That matters because Article 39 sets deadlines once an investigation starts:

• Two or more neutral physicians or subject-matter experts must be selected within 60 days.
• They must issue a written report within 60 days of their selection.
• The parties then address any recommended corrective measures.

That could mean roughly 120 days, depending on when the review formally starts. As of October 31, 2026, no completed report or finding of wrongdoing has been announced. The review is separate from any civil lawsuit.

5. The NFL Rules and CBA Provisions That Apply

The NFL’s 2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement sets contractual medical rights and duties between clubs and players. Article 39 is the most relevant part.

Section 1(d), who clears a player. The club’s Head Team Physician has exclusive and final authority within the club to determine whether a player is medically cleared to play. A review may need to establish who reviewed the ultrasound, who made the final clearance decision, and what information they had.

Section 1(e), the player comes first. Although clubs pay for medical services, the primary duty of club medical personnel is to the player-patient, not the club, and they must follow applicable medical and ethical standards. Team doctors who share information about a player’s condition with coaches or club staff must also disclose it to the player, in writing for serious or career-threatening conditions.

Section 5(d), complaints. A player can complain to the Accountability and Care Committee about club medical care. The provision also makes clear that the CBA does not create a general duty of medical care on the NFL or NFLPA.

Section 5(f), independent investigation. A player, club, the NFL or the NFLPA can start an investigation into health, safety or medical care by club-affiliated personnel, involving at least two neutral experts and a written report. This is the process now under discussion.

Section 6, second opinions. Players may get a second medical opinion, paid by the club if they first consult the club physician and share the report.

Section 7, choice of surgeon. Players may choose their surgeon, subject to requirements. This is less relevant to blood-clot care.

Article 3, Section 2, the No-Suit provision. It restricts certain lawsuits by players and the NFLPA against the league or clubs over conduct permitted by the CBA, while preserving routes for contract-based claims through grievance or arbitration. Whether Hurts could sue depends on the exact basis of any claim, and it is wrong to say every claim against every NFL doctor is barred.

6. Could Hurts Sue for Medical Malpractice?

Potentially, but no such lawsuit has been filed in connection with this incident. A serious complication alone is not malpractice. A claimant generally must prove:

1. The provider owed a duty of care.
2. The provider breached the professional standard of care.
3. The breach caused or substantially contributed to the injury.
4. The claimant suffered legally recognized damages.

Expert medical testimony is usually needed on both the standard of care and causation. Questions a claim would face include:

• Was the first clot properly evaluated based on the ultrasound, clinical exam and information available in London?
• Was clearing him to play appropriate, judged by what was known at the time, not by hindsight?
• Did travel to and from London matter, and did it comply with the medical recommendations?
• Did playing contribute to the progression? A clot found before the game and a worse diagnosis after it does not automatically prove causation.
• Were the risks communicated adequately to Hurts?

These are open questions for the review and any future litigation, not findings.

7. Could He Sue Individual Doctors Even if the CBA Limits Claims Against the Eagles?

That is a different legal question. The No-Suit provision concerns claims against the league and clubs, but claims against individual physicians or independent medical practices can present different issues. The answer may depend on:

• Whether the doctor is a team employee or an independent practice.
• Whether the defendant acted as a club-affiliated provider.
• Where the alleged negligence occurred.
• Whether resolving the claim requires interpreting the CBA.
• Which state or country’s law applies.

Under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, some state-law claims can be preempted when they require substantial interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, which can push a dispute into grievance or arbitration instead of ordinary court. Because Hurts’ initial assessment occurred in London and later care was in the United States, a future case could also raise jurisdiction, governing-law and limitation-period questions. None of this can be decided without knowing the actual defendants and claims.

8. Have Other NFL Players Sued Over Medical Care?

Yes. Former Eagles safety Chris Maragos sued orthopedic surgeon Dr. James Bradley and others over treatment of his knee injury, arguing it contributed to ending his career. A Philadelphia jury awarded him $43.5 million in 2023, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment in a non-precedential decision on August 30, 2024. The case shows an NFL player can pursue malpractice claims against medical providers. It says nothing about whether the Eagles’ staff was negligent here, since the facts and defendants differ.

Other players have also gone to court over injuries and treatment. Former Browns receiver David Bell filed a lawsuit in 2026 alleging an unnecessary surgery caused a serious arterial injury and ended his career, and those allegations are unproven. AllAboutLawyer covered it in David Bell $300 Million Lawsuit, Former Browns WR Sues Over Allegedly Unnecessary Surgery in Pennsylvania. A different kind of injury dispute is explained in DeMeco Ryans Sued Texans And NFL For Millions Over Career-Ending Field Injury, Then Became Their Head Coach.

9. The Bigger Issue: Team Doctors and Dual Loyalty

The controversy has revived a long-running concern about conflicts of interest in NFL medical care. A 2016 Harvard study, funded by the NFLPA, identified an inherent conflict when team doctors both treat players and advise clubs about their availability, and recommended separating player care from team evaluation roles. The issue is not unique to the Eagles or Hurts, but this case has put it back in focus.

10. Could the Review Lead to a Lawsuit?

It could become one piece of the process, but a review is not a lawsuit. It may examine whether CBA procedures were followed, whether the first clot was properly evaluated, whether clearing Hurts was medically supported, whether the recommended follow-up happened on time, and whether NFL medical procedures need changes. Its findings could matter if Hurts later pursues legal remedies, but it may also find that procedures were followed or recommend only improvements. It does not directly award compensation the way a civil judgment can.

Process	Purpose	Can it award damages?
NFL/NFLPA medical review	Examines medical care and safety procedures	Not ordinarily
CBA grievance or arbitration	Resolves disputes covered by the CBA	May grant contractual remedies
Medical malpractice lawsuit	Decides whether legally actionable negligence occurred	Yes, potentially
Workers’ compensation	Covers qualifying workplace injuries	Statutory benefits, not ordinary tort damages

Any claim for money would also raise other issues, such as health-care coverage and liens. For an example of how injury settlements can be reduced by Medicare, see AllAboutLawyer’s Merril Hoge Roundup Lawsuit: Two Claims Allowed To Proceed, but Medicare Could Reduce a Settlement. It is also too early to estimate damages: there is no finding of negligence or causation, and the Eagles and his agent have said they expect a full recovery.

11. The Older Lawsuit: LaRose v. Hurts

Apart from the medical issue, Hurts was previously a defendant in a federal suit by Pshatoia LaRose, LaRose v. Hurts et al., No. 4:24-cv-04843, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. She represented herself and named both Hurts and Philadelphia Eagles, LLC.

Allegations. According to the court’s March 2026 order, she asserted claims involving unauthorized use of intellectual property, invasion of privacy, stalking and harassment, and alleged phone identity hacks. These were allegations, not findings.

What happened. The court examined res judicata, the doctrine that generally prevents relitigating the same claims after a final judgment. LaRose had brought related claims in Texas state court, and the federal case was filed December 4, 2024, two days after a state court dismissed her claims against the Eagles. A separate state proceeding also dismissed claims against Hurts. Hurts initially moved to dismiss, then withdrew that motion after LaRose was given time to retain counsel and file an amended complaint. She did not file the required amended complaint. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, and on March 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge adopted the recommendation and dismissed the claims against both defendants with prejudice. The order was entered March 14, 2026.

What “with prejudice” means. The claims generally cannot be refiled as the same claims in that proceeding. The dismissal rested on res judicata, not a trial that investigated and disproved each allegation.

Other LaRose proceedings in Texas

• First Dallas County case, LaRose v. Hurts and Philadelphia Eagles (No. DC-24-10314). The Fifth Court of Appeals (No. 05-24-01511-CV) dismissed her appeal on October 9, 2025 after she failed to file the required brief, and declined the defendants’ requests for damages and sanctions.
• Second Dallas County case, LaRose v. Hurts (No. CV-25-00132). The Fifth Court of Appeals (No. 05-25-00873-CV) dismissed the appeal on February 13, 2026 because deficiencies in her brief were not corrected.

Both appellate dismissals were procedural, not verdicts on the truth of her allegations.

Date	Development
December 2, 2024	State court dismisses claims against the Eagles
December 4, 2024	Related federal case filed in Houston
February 18, 2025	State court dismisses claims against Hurts in the second proceeding
October 9, 2025	First state appeal dismissed
February 13, 2026	Second state appeal dismissed
March 13, 2026	Federal judge dismisses claims against Hurts and the Eagles with prejudice
March 14, 2026	Dismissal order entered

12. Is Hurts Suing the Eagles Right Now?

No. As of October 31, 2026, there is no confirmed:

• Medical malpractice complaint filed by Hurts.
• Lawsuit seeking damages for the blood clot diagnosis.
• Settlement with the Eagles over the medical incident.
• Court finding of medical negligence.
• NFL disciplinary ruling against the team over this episode.

The LaRose case was brought against Hurts, not by him. The review could reveal issues that lead to further action, but criticism of medical decisions is not proof that a lawsuit exists or that malpractice occurred.

13. What Happens Next?

The next major development is likely the formal start and progress of the NFL-NFLPA review under Article 39, Section 5(f): choosing neutral experts and examining the records. Issues to watch include:

1. The October 10 ultrasound and the medical decisions made in London.
2. The decision to let Hurts play on October 11.
3. The timing and findings of follow-up imaging.
4. What was communicated to Hurts.
5. Whether CBA requirements were followed and whether corrective measures are needed.

The outcome could affect how clearance decisions are handled across the league and may influence whether Hurts pursues contractual or civil remedies. No finding of negligence has been made as of October 31, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Jalen Hurts suing the Philadelphia Eagles?

No lawsuit by Hurts over his blood clot care has been identified as of October 31, 2026. The current issue is an NFL and NFLPA review.

Why is Hurts tied to a lawsuit controversy?

Two separate stories: the medical review over his blood clots, and an older Texas lawsuit against him and the Eagles that was dismissed in March 2026.

What happened to Jalen Hurts?

After a cleat struck his left calf on October 4, a superficial clot was found on October 10. Later testing revealed deep vein thrombosis and clots in both lungs.

Why was he allowed to play against Jacksonville?

The Eagles said their medical staff and physicians in London concluded he could safely play, with a follow-up ultrasound recommended within 72 hours. That decision is part of the requested review.

What is the NFLPA investigating?

The circumstances of his diagnosis, medical evaluation, clearance and treatment, so that conclusions are drawn only after the facts are established.

Did the NFL find the Eagles negligent?

No. The NFL has defended the team’s handling, and there has been no finding of medical negligence.

What is CBA Article 39?

The part of the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement that governs players’ rights to medical care, including clearance authority, disclosure, second opinions and independent investigations.

Can an NFL player sue his team for malpractice?

The CBA’s No-Suit provision restricts certain claims against clubs and the league and routes some disputes to grievance or arbitration. Claims against independent doctors or practices can raise different issues.

Has an Eagles player won a malpractice case before?

Yes. Chris Maragos won a $43.5 million jury verdict in 2023, affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in August 2024.

Who is Pshatoia LaRose?

A private plaintiff who sued Hurts and the Eagles in earlier cases over unrelated allegations.

Did LaRose win?

No. Her federal case, No. 4:24-cv-04843, was dismissed with prejudice on March 13, 2026 on res judicata grounds.

Was the LaRose case about his blood clots?

No. It involved privacy, intellectual property, harassment and stalking allegations.

Has the NFLPA investigation finished?

No completed report or findings had been announced as of October 31, 2026.

How much could Hurts receive in a malpractice case?

No amount exists. No claim has been filed and no court has found negligence or compensable harm.

Is this a class action?

No. The medical review is not a class action, and the LaRose case was an individual civil suit.

Sources and Legal References

Official team and medical statements

1. Philadelphia Eagles, October 15, 2026 statement on Jalen Hurts
2. Philadelphia Eagles and Nicole Lynn, October 19, 2026 medical update
3. Philadelphia Eagles, Hurts placed on injured reserve (October 17, 2026)
4. ABC News, Hurts injury timeline

NFL and NFLPA reporting

5. Reuters, NFL and NFLPA review Jalen Hurts’ medical diagnosis (October 25, 2026)
6. Associated Press via ABC7, NFLPA calls for full investigation; Eagles not being disciplined
7. CBS/AP, NFLPA calls for full investigation into Eagles’ handling
8. Reuters, NFLPA requests medical review (October 21, 2026)
9. theScore, NFLPA wants full investigation into handling of Hurts’ medical process
10. Front Office Sports, NFL and union open discussions on joint investigation

NFL agreement and player rights

11. NFL CBA, Article 39: Players’ Rights to Medical Care and Treatment
12. NFL CBA, Article 3, Section 2: No Suit
13. NFLPA, What medical rights do players have?
14. Harvard Football Players Health Study, 2016 report on legal and ethical recommendations for NFL player health care

Previous Jalen Hurts litigation

15. LaRose v. Hurts, federal court order, March 13, 2026
16. LaRose v. Philadelphia Eagles and Jalen Hurts, Texas Fifth Court of Appeals, October 9, 2025
17. LaRose v. Jalen Hurts, Texas Fifth Court of Appeals, February 13, 2026

Related sports medical malpractice case

18. Maragos v. Bradley, Pennsylvania Superior Court, August 30, 2024

About the Author

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher covering U.S. lawsuits, sports law, medical malpractice, federal court decisions, consumer rights and major legal developments.

This article is based on official Philadelphia Eagles statements, public court decisions, NFL collective bargaining provisions and established news reporting. Allegations and questions raised by the NFLPA are not findings of medical negligence.

Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent legal information website, not a law firm. This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal or medical advice.

Last Updated: October 31, 2026