The NFL Players Association has contradicted the league's official stance on the medical care provided to Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts, stating that the union was informed the league would not review the situation. This assertion stands in direct conflict with comments made by NFL officials earlier in the day, who claimed to have a complete understanding of the events surrounding Hurts' blood clots.
During the NFL's fall league meeting on Tuesday, Dr. Allen Sills, the league's chief medical officer, expressed full confidence in the Eagles' medical staff and their handling of Hurts' deep vein thrombosis. Sills described the care as conservative, patient-focused, and appropriately guarded. He noted that while deep vein thrombosis cases among players are rare, typically numbering in the low single digits per season over the past decade, every case is reviewed. Sills emphasized that the medical team in London acted with an abundance of caution and high suspicion to identify and treat the condition quickly.
Jeff Miller, the NFL executive vice president of communications, public affairs and policy, elaborated on the league's assessment. When asked whether an investigation took place or if the league simply trusted the Eagles' account, Miller stated that officials spoke with Eagles staff, people on the ground, and independent hospital doctors to ensure a complete understanding of the course of events. The league characterized media reports suggesting negligence as considerable and uninformed speculation.
However, a statement released by the NFLPA on Tuesday evening challenged this narrative. The union said it was not aware of any NFL investigation into Hurts' medical care and cited previous information from the league stating it did not plan to review the care he received. The NFLPA argued that before conclusions are drawn about how the situation was handled, a full investigation into what occurred is necessary. The union maintained that determining the facts is essential to ensuring players receive the highest level of care and protection going forward.
The discrepancy between the NFL's defense and the NFLPA's account leaves questions about the extent of the league's review process. While Sills and Miller indicated that a thorough examination of the timeline and medical decisions had occurred, the union's statement suggests no such formal review was conducted or communicated to them.