‘The Pitt’ can be sued over similarities with ‘ER’, appeals court rules

A US court of appeals has allowed a lawsuit against The Pitt to move forward, ruling the show is similar enough to the 1990s hit ER to justify legal action by Michael Crichton’s widow.

In a unanimous decision filed on Wednesday, a three-judge panel denied an appeal from Warner Bros. Television, producer of the 2025 series, which argued that the shows are unrelated.

“There are clear and numerous similarities between The Pitt and ER,” the court ruled, highlighting specific elements such as the “‘rapid-fire deployment of medical jargon,’ ‘scores of obscure or profession-coded pieces of language in each episode,’ and the similar impact these are likely to have on the viewer.”

The defendants—including WBTV, former ER showrunner John Wells, former star Noah Wyle, and former writer-producer R. Scott Gemmill—argued that these elements were merely “generic similarities” common to “any dramatic story involving emergency room doctors.” They contended that it “cannot be that all shows set in an emergency room are derivative of ER.”

However, the court determined the details “suffice for a prima facie case.”

At the same time, it dismissed a separate claim after finding no evidence the defendants were aware they might be violating Crichton’s contractual rights.

The lawsuit will move forward at the trial court.

Crichton, the creator of Jurassic Park, based ER on a script drawn from his own experiences as a medical student.

His 1994 contract with WBTV contained a “frozen rights” provision, which prohibited any spin-offs or reboots without his approval. Following his death in 2008, his rights passed to Roadrunner JMTC LLC, an entity managed by his widow, Sherri.

According to the complaint, the defendants began developing a “reboot” of ER in early 2020. After seeking Sherri’s approval in 2022 and receiving a refusal, "defendants then in short order developed The Pitt."

In 2024, months before The Pitt was set to air, Sherri filed her lawsuit alleging intentional interference with the 1994 agreement.

Following the news, Sherri gave a statement saying, “I am deeply gratified by the Court of Appeal decision and look forward to discovery and to our case, which affects writers, creators, and their families and estates, being presented to a jury."