Is “The Pitt” a Reboot of ER? Understanding the Legal Controversy

The debut of HBO’s “The Pitt” in January prompted immediate parallels to the iconic medical drama “ER.”

Both series take place in bustling urban hospitals, focusing on the lives of healthcare professionals as they face various challenging situations in the emergency room.

Notably, “The Pitt” features Noah Wyle, recognized for his role as Dr. John Carter in “ER,” now taking on the character of Dr. Michael “Robby” Robinavitch.

Additionally, the series is a reunion of “ER” producers John Wells and R. Scott Gemmill.

The striking similarities between the shows have led to a legal conflict between the makers of “The Pitt” and the estate of the late author Michael Crichton.

Crichton, renowned for his literary works that inspired “Jurassic Park” and “The Andromeda Strain,” originally scripted “ER” in 1974 and served as an executive producer until his passing in 2008, when the medical series concluded in 2009.

Currently, Crichton’s estate claims in a lawsuit that “The Pitt” was made as a sequel to “ER” without authorization from the author’s descendants.

The creators of “The Pitt,” however, maintain that their work is distinct from “ER,” contending it is “no more similar to ‘ER’ than ‘Grey’s Anatomy,’ ‘Chicago Med,’ or numerous other hospital dramas that have aired both before and after ‘ER.’”

Continue reading to discover more about the lawsuit initiated by Michael Crichton’s estate against the creators of “The Pitt” and the current status of the case.

What prompted Michael Crichton’s estate to sue the creators of ‘The Pitt’?

In August 2024, Michael Crichton’s estate filed a lawsuit against the creators of “The Pitt,” citing three counts, including breach of contract.

The plaintiffs assert that the HBO series, which launched in January, is an unauthorized reboot of “ER,” originally produced by Crichton from 1994 to 2009.

Included among the defendants are Warner Bros. Television, showrunner R. Scott Gemmill, executive producer John Wells, and Noah Wyle, who serves as both star and executive producer of “The Pitt.”

The complaint states that the defendants started developing an “ER” reboot in 2020 for airing on HBO Max, allegedly without notifying Crichton’s widow, Sherri Crichton, and while “brazenly disregarding” the contractual rights protected by the late author’s estate.

The lawsuit claims Crichton had a “frozen rights” clause in his contract, which forbade Warner Bros. Television from producing any sequels, remakes, or derivative works of “ER” without Crichton’s explicit consent.

It further alleges that the team behind “The Pitt” revealed their reboot plans to Crichton’s widow in 2022, two years after they started development.

After negotiations with the studio failed, Crichton’s estate declined to consent to the proposed reboot, as stated in the lawsuit.

“The defendants’ work on an ER reboot should have ceased without the plaintiff’s consent,” the lawsuit claims, “yet their efforts continued.”

The lawsuit argues that “The Pitt” closely mirrors “ER,” with only the setting and character names altered.

Specifically, it contends that Noah Wyle essentially reprises his role as Dr. John Carter, renamed Dr. Michael Robinavitch in the new series.

“Noah Wyle’s character is Dr. John Carter from ‘ER,’ merely under a different name, thirty years later, enriched with the experiences from the original series’ 15-year run,” the lawsuit alleges.

It also notes significant parallels regarding their hospital environments, narrative structure, and supporting characters, highlighting that “the main character’s co-worker/friend in both series is portrayed as a roguish bad boy.”

The complaint points out that John Wells, who was an executive producer on “ER,” is also involved with “The Pitt.”

The lawsuit states, “The Pitt is ‘ER.’ It is not merely like ‘ER,’ it outright is ‘ER,’ featuring the same executive producer, writing team, star, production companies, studio, and network as the attempted ‘ER’ reboot. No one is deceived.”

The plaintiffs have described the defendants’ actions as “legally and morally reprehensible” and, in Wells’ case, “a personal betrayal of a thirty-year friendship.”

“The defendants are not merely trying to obscure Crichton’s credit but to obliterate it, depriving his heirs of the benefits of one of his most significant works,” the lawsuit asserts. “The plaintiff will not allow this to occur. The defendants must be held accountable to Crichton and other creators whose rights are frequently violated in the pursuit of unrestrained greed.”

What is the response from the creators of ‘The Pitt’?

The creators of “The Pitt” have pushed back against the lawsuit.

On January 31, Warner Bros. Television and the other defendants filed for dismissal of the lawsuit, invoking California’s anti-SLAPP law.

This anti-SLAPP motion aims to prevent frivolous legal actions intended to “suppress the legitimate exercise of constitutional rights pertaining to free speech,” as described in the statute.

The creators maintain that producing the show constitutes a “constitutionally protected act of free speech,” noted in a February ruling by the Superior Court of California.

While producers Gemmill and Wells have refrained from public comments on the lawsuit, they have discussed their perspectives in interviews regarding the differences between “The Pitt” and “ER.”

Gemmill stated that he and his fellow creators sought to “approach it with a fresh perspective for us and the audience, avoiding simply rehashing previous work,” as expressed to Variety on January 23.

He emphasized that he wasn’t interested in replicating “ER.”

“If I were to do another medical show, it would need to be entirely different and innovative. I don’t want to repeat myself. I can see some people would enjoy a revival of ‘ER’ for nostalgia, but that’s not exciting for me, nor do I think it would be for Noah (Wyle),” he reflected.

In a joint interview, Wyle opined that “The Pitt” and “ER” tell their stories from distinct perspectives.

“In many respects, ‘ER’ centered on the patients, while this series is more about the providers, focusing on the medicine and current practices while prioritizing their perspectives,” he explained.

In a November statement, Warner Bros. Television characterized the lawsuit’s claims as “baseless.”

“Ms. (Sherri) Crichton’s lawsuit against WBD lacks both factual and legal merit. Her interpretation of the timeline and content concerning our negotiations about a potential ‘ER’ reboot is incorrect, and we firmly deny her allegations,” the studio stated, as reported by Deadline.

“Significantly, ‘The Pitt’ does not incorporate any ‘ER’ intellectual property and resembles ‘ER’ no more than ‘Grey’s Anatomy,’ ‘Chicago Med,’ or other numerous hospital medical dramas developed before or after ‘ER,’” the statement added.

Casey Bloys, head of HBO’s Max streaming service, also dismissed claims that “The Pitt” was derived from “ER” during remarks at a November press conference, as noted by Variety.

“While I may not be permitted to discuss ongoing litigation, I will express that the notion that a show cannot be set in an ER seems unrealistic, as if no other series could occupy a hospital emergency room,” he remarked. “It’s pretty much a staple of television.”

In response to Bloys’ comments, Sherri Crichton, in a Deadline interview that same month, deemed them “incredible.”

“The lawsuit isn’t about whether anyone can produce a show in a hospital environment,” she clarified. “It’s about whether Warner Bros., John Wells, Noah Wyle, and Scott Gemmill can develop an ‘ER’ reboot for two years, engage in almost a year of consent negotiations with the estate according to Michael Crichton’s contract, and subsequently proceed with a near-identical show under a different title and location when they fail to meet terms they desire.”

What is the current status of the case? As of February 24, a judge rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, allowing the lawsuit to progress.

In her decision, Judge Wendy Chang of the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles acknowledged that the creation of “The Pitt” is indeed a “constitutionally protected act of free speech.”

However, the court also determined that the plaintiffs’ claims were not “entirely meritless” and could not be dismissed, thus allowing the legal proceedings to continue.

The ruling indicated that the plaintiffs had established a sequence of communications and events that outlined their negotiations with the estate regarding the ‘ER’ reboot, the impasse of these negotiations, and the subsequent formation of “The Pitt.”

A case management conference is set for March 26 in Los Angeles.