Jalen Hurts, Blood Clots, and the Responsibility of a Professional Team Physician

Oct 26

9 min read

By Dr. Sarang Desai Fellowship-Trained Orthopedic Surgeon | Professional Sports Team Physician | McKinney and Flower Mound, Texas

Updated October 26, 2026

When a professional quarterback plays after doctors identify a blood clot and is later diagnosed with clots in both lungs, people understandably want answers.

Why was he cleared to play? Was it safe to fly? Should treatment have started sooner? And when a physician works with a professional team, whose interests come first?

Those are reasonable questions. Answering them responsibly requires separating the medical facts, the reporting, and the assumptions.

As an orthopedic surgeon and professional sports team physician, I believe this story deserves a clear explanation of both the medicine and the responsibilities that come with caring for athletes. I am not Jalen Hurts’s physician, have not reviewed his records, and cannot determine from public reporting whether his care met the appropriate standard.

What I can explain is why the controversy matters, what a meaningful review should examine, and how these decisions should be approached.

What happened to Jalen Hurts?

The Eagles’ October 15 statement described the following sequence:

October 4: Hurts sustained a cleat injury to his calf during the Rams game.
October 8–9: He sought treatment, continued practicing, and was added to the practice report.
October 10: After the team traveled to London, an ultrasound identified a superficial clot. The team said its medical staff and London doctors concluded he could play, with follow-up imaging recommended within 72 hours of the game and return flight.
October 11: He played against Jacksonville.
October 14: Follow-up ultrasound showed a change the team described as movement of the clot, and he was subsequently ruled out against Carolina. [1]

On October 19, the Eagles and Hurts’s agent announced a diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis and bilateral pulmonary emboli. They described him as clinically stable, with a very good prognosis, and said treatment would involve anticoagulation. Contact football would be prohibited while he took blood thinners. [2]

On October 25, the NFL and NFL Players Association announced a joint review of the handling of his diagnosis. Reports indicate he is expected to miss the rest of the season; that expectation is not a substitute for his physicians’ eventual clearance decision. [3]

Why the type of clot changes the conversation

“Blood clot” is an imprecise description. Three different diagnoses are relevant:

Superficial vein thrombosis is a clot in a vein near the skin. Some are localized and relatively low risk; others can coexist with or extend into the deep venous system.

Deep vein thrombosis, or DVT, is a clot in a deep vein, commonly in the leg.

Pulmonary embolism, or PE, occurs when a clot travels to the lungs and obstructs blood flow. It can be life-threatening. DVT and PE are collectively called venous thromboembolism. [4,5]

An initial superficial diagnosis and a later DVT/PE diagnosis do not, by themselves, tell us exactly what happened between those examinations. That requires the actual images, reports, symptoms, and treatment timeline.

What is all the controversy about?

1. Why was he allowed to play after a clot was found?

This is the most immediate concern: a clot was identified before the game, yet Hurts participated.

The Eagles said doctors considered activity and mobility important and cleared him to play. [1] That explanation leaves an understandable question: How was the risk of NFL competition assessed separately from the benefits of ordinary movement?

Encouraging someone to remain mobile is a different recommendation from clearing a quarterback for tackles and collisions.

At the same time, a superficial clot does not automatically require the same restrictions or treatment as a DVT. The relevant question is whether the initial findings and risk factors supported the specific clearance decision.

2. Was it appropriate to fly back from London?

Long periods of immobility during travel can increase clotting risk. That makes the flight decision relevant, but does not prove that the flight caused the pulmonary emboli. [5]

Albert Breer reported on October 26 that Hurts was cleared to return without another ultrasound after the game because the clot was considered superficial. That is reported information, rather than a public release of the medical record. [6]

A review should establish whether repeat imaging or delaying travel was indicated by his condition at that point. We cannot answer that simply by working backward from the later diagnosis.

3. Was the initial evaluation complete, and was follow-up timely?

The central clinical questions concern the first scan’s findings: which vein was involved, clot length, proximity to deep-vein junctions, and whether a DVT was present.

Subsequent symptoms and imaging also matter. Was the condition evolving? Were new symptoms recognized and acted upon? What treatment was recommended, and when?

Those questions should guide scrutiny. Public descriptions such as a clot “moving” are not detailed enough to reconstruct the anatomy or determine when embolization occurred.

4. Why did the league’s defense of the care create more backlash?

The NFL publicly defended the medical handling. The NFLPA then said it was unaware of an NFL investigation and that the league had previously indicated it did not plan to review the care. The union called for a full investigation before conclusions were drawn. [7]

That created a second controversy: what examination supported the league’s reassurance?

The subsequent joint review is an opportunity to establish the facts. It should not be portrayed as either proof of wrongdoing or a completed exoneration.

5. What about the report that he was told not to sleep?

Early coverage included an alarming account that Hurts had been awake for roughly 36 hours on medical advice. Subsequent reporting challenged that account. Breer’s timeline said he returned to the hotel around 2:45 a.m. and had an opportunity to sleep before leaving for the stadium. [6]

The article should not treat a medical instruction to remain awake for 36 hours as established fact.

Conflicting reports illustrate why a widely repeated detail needs verification before becoming the foundation of a medical judgment.

What would appropriate treatment look like?

Treatment depends on the diagnosis and individual risk.

For superficial thrombosis, ultrasound should define the clot and assess the deep veins. A small clot, sufficiently distant from a deep-vein junction and without higher-risk features, may receive symptom relief and surveillance, including repeat imaging.

Longer or higher-risk superficial clots may require approximately 45 days of anticoagulation. Clots within about 3 cm of a deep-vein junction are often treated with therapeutic anticoagulation for about three months, although evidence for that particular practice is limited. [4]

For confirmed DVT with PE, anticoagulation is the main treatment for most patients. Eligible patients commonly receive medications such as apixaban or rivaroxaban. The initial treatment phase generally lasts three to six months, with longer treatment considered when recurrence risk warrants it. [8]

Clots in both lungs do not automatically require a procedure. Symptoms, circulation, oxygenation, and heart strain help determine severity. Clot-dissolving treatment or clot removal is reserved for selected higher-risk situations. Anticoagulation alone can be appropriate treatment. [8]

Without the initial ultrasound and clinical record, it would be inappropriate to declare that Hurts definitely needed anticoagulation before the London game—or that withholding it was necessarily correct.

The dynamics of being a professional team physician

Professional sports medicine brings the physician into a setting where health decisions have immediate consequences for competition, careers, and livelihoods.

The athlete may want to play. Coaches need availability information. The organization must plan. Those relationships can create competing interests, a longstanding concern in team-physician ethics. The physician’s primary responsibility remains the athlete’s short- and long-term well-being. [9]

The team affiliation does not change who the patient is.

Medical independence must be protected

The AMA’s sports medicine ethics guidance says participation decisions should rest on medical considerations. Spectators, event organizers, and even the injured athlete’s wishes should not determine a medically necessary removal from participation. [10]

For me, the practical implication is straightforward: a physician must be able to recommend sitting out without allowing the importance of a game to alter the medical assessment.

Recognizing that responsibility does not establish that anyone interfered with Hurts’s care. A potential conflict in the structure of professional sport is not evidence that a specific physician acted improperly.

An athlete’s willingness to play is only one part of the decision

Athletes deserve a meaningful role in their care. That requires explaining the diagnosis, uncertainty, options, and consequences in language they understand.

A request to play should prompt a careful conversation. It should not replace one.

International sports medicine ethics guidance emphasizes informed consent, medical independence, access to another physician, and the athlete’s interests above contractual obligations. [11]

In a clotting case, that discussion should address the risks of the disease, the consequences of anticoagulation, and the distinction between safe conditioning and collision sport. Agreeing to accept risk does not eliminate the physician’s professional judgment.

Specialists strengthen care

A team physician is not expected to independently manage every complex medical condition. Appropriate consultation is part of the job.

For venous thrombosis, the needed expertise may include hematology, vascular medicine, cardiology, or pulmonary medicine, depending on the findings. The team physician helps coordinate recommendations and translate them into a clear participation plan. Referral when a problem exceeds the physician’s expertise is expressly supported by sports medicine ethics guidance. [11]

Privacy and accountability must coexist

An athlete should understand what information is being shared, with whom, and for what purpose. Public interest does not make the entire medical record public property.

FIMS guidance specifically addresses athlete privacy, consent for disclosures, and discussion with the athlete about information released publicly. [11]

My view is that a careful review can examine whether care and communication were appropriate while respecting those boundaries. Limited public detail should not automatically be interpreted as concealment; privacy should not prevent authorized scrutiny.

Trust depends on how uncertainty is explained

A medical recommendation is more credible when the athlete understands what is known, what remains uncertain, and what would change the plan.

In this setting, useful explanations include:

What the imaging shows and what it cannot exclude.
Why the proposed treatment fits the findings.
Which symptoms require immediate reassessment.
When follow-up will occur.
Which activities are permitted and which are restricted.

This is the standard of communication I would want for any patient whose health and livelihood depend on the decision.

Why blood thinners change return to football

Both the clot and the treatment matter.

Anticoagulation reduces further clotting but increases bleeding risk. A collision or head injury can have more serious consequences in an anticoagulated athlete. Guidance generally restricts high-impact competitive sports, including football, during treatment. [12]

That does not necessarily mean complete inactivity. A treating team may permit progressive non-contact conditioning as recovery allows.

Return to collision sport requires assessment of recovery, symptoms, recurrence risk, and the need for ongoing medication. Feeling better is not permission to stop anticoagulation. Specialized intermittent-dosing strategies have been discussed for selected athletes, but they are not a routine shortcut through acute treatment. [12]

What I would want the review to accomplish

A useful review should establish what happened at each decision point, assess whether the decisions were reasonable given the information available, and identify improvements.

It should examine imaging, consultation, treatment, follow-up, travel clearance, informed consent, and communication.

A complication does not by itself prove negligent care. Conversely, good intentions or compliance with an administrative process do not settle every clinical question. The medical decisions deserve examination on their merits.

The most constructive outcome would be a clearer understanding of the case and stronger processes for the next athlete who presents with similar symptoms.

What patients should take from this story

Being young and fit does not eliminate clotting risk. Injury, surgery, reduced mobility, travel, and underlying predispositions can contribute. [5]

Seek prompt assessment for new one-sided leg swelling, unexplained calf or thigh pain, warmth, or discoloration.

Call 911 for sudden unexplained shortness of breath, chest pain, fainting, or coughing up blood. These can indicate pulmonary embolism. [13]

As a foot and ankle surgeon, I particularly want patients recovering from lower-extremity injuries or surgery to report new or disproportionate calf symptoms rather than assume they are normal soreness.

Hurts’s case deserves careful review and accurate reporting. It also reinforces the principle that should guide every team physician: the athlete’s health must remain the basis of the decision, however consequential that decision is for the game.

About Dr. Sarang Desai

Dr. Sarang Desai is a fellowship-trained orthopedic foot and ankle surgeon and professional sports team physician. He is a published researcher, orthopedic implant inventor, national lecturer, and former University of Texas All-American athlete.

He treats sports injuries and foot and ankle conditions in McKinney and Flower Mound, Texas, serving patients throughout Dallas–Fort Worth.

Visit theachillesdoc.com

This article provides general medical education and commentary based on publicly available information as of October 26, 2026. It does not replace an individual medical evaluation or constitute an assessment of any specific physician’s care.