Criminal Charges in Matthew Perry’s Death and its Effects on Wrongful Death Damages

The shocking death of “Friends” actor, Matthew Perry, from a ketamine overdose has become one of the most publicized cases in illegal ketamine distribution, with the potential to also set precedent for wrongful death damages. A federal indictment charging those involved with Perry’s death with conspiracy to distribute ketamine, among other charges, was recently unsealed, and so far, two defendants have pled guilty. With two others scheduled to go to trial on the charges, the case is primed for a wrongful death lawsuit, if and when Perry’s estate chooses to file. In light of the criminal allegations at play, it is likely that Perry’s estate could seek significant damages that are not subject to caps otherwise applicable to standard medical malpractice cases.

The Charges

According to the indictment, Dr. Salvador Plasencia and Jasveen Sangha, referred to as “the Ketamine Queen,” conspired with listed co-conspirators, Dr. Mark Chavez, Perry’s assistant, Kenneth Iwamasa, and acquaintance, Erik Fleming (the latter three were charged in a separate indictment) to distribute ketamine to Perry. Namely, Iwamasa would communicate with the others, in encrypted messaging and coded language, to procure ketamine for Perry. Plasencia and Fleming used Chavez and Sangha as suppliers, the latter of whom maintained a stash house in North Hollywood, California. Starting on September 30, 2023, Plasencia contacted Chavez about purchasing ketamine to sell to Perry. Chavez had previously obtained ketamine lozenges by writing fraudulent prescriptions in the name of an unknowing individual. Chavez provided Plasencia with the prescription, along with liquid ketamine and other supplies. Plasencia met with Perry on that same date and administered the ketamine, then taught him how to self-administer. Plasencia was paid approximately $4,500 in cash for this transaction.

As Perry’s assistant, Iwamasa would meet with Plasencia and Fleming to purchase ketamine for him. Plasencia, who was distributing the ketamine “outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate purpose,” had taught Iwamasa how to inject Perry, which was done without the proper safety equipment and without necessary monitoring. Throughout October, Plasencia continued to obtain ketamine from Chavez, who was obtaining the drug from a wholesale distributor. Plasencia would supply the drug to Iwamasa or meet with Perry to administer the drug directly. Iwamasa also purchased ketamine from Fleming, who obtained drugs from Sangha, an alleged drug dealer to celebrities. Fleming sold 25 vials of ketamine to Iwamasa on Perry’s behalf.

On October 28, 2023, Iwamasa injected Perry with the ketamine provided by Sangha and Fleming, and with the syringes supplied by Plasencia, which ultimately resulted in Perry’s death.

Fleming, Iwamasa, and Chavez have pled guilty to distribution charges, with Sangha and Plasencia scheduled to go to trial on charges that carry a mandatory minimum of ten years imprisonment.

The Potential for a Wrongful Death Lawsuit

As the indictment alleges conduct that clearly falls below the standard of care for any doctor, the charges leave open the question of whether Chavez and Plasencia will be held liable for their actions as physicians. As Stuart Ratzan, of Ratzan Weissman & Boldt commented, "I would consider these guys to be rogue doctors, this is not the expectation of what a normal, reasonable and functioning physician would do…This is way outside the boundaries of what a reasonably careful doctor would do. This is all about stashing cash. When greed takes over, bad things happen." A wrongful death lawsuit, along with a criminal conviction, would hopefully act as a deterrent and prevent doctors from engaging in similar conduct. As Ratzan explains, "Conduct rewarded is conduct repeated…When doctors get away with substandard or reckless care and are not held accountable, they'll do it again. So the best way to shape change is to enforce the rules we have."

Likewise, following a criminal conviction with a civil lawsuit would make sense, as the criminal proceeding would essentially provide a guided strategy to the estate’s own civil suit if it so chooses to file one. Because criminal charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, if Plasencia is convicted (and because Chavez already pled guilty), a civil case against them, which need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, would likely prevail.

As Guy R. Gruppie, a senior partner at Murchison & Cumming LLP in Los Angeles and a specialist in defending against wrongful death cases, explains: "The plaintiffs' side of the case would be inclined to very carefully watch the prosecution and see how that all goes down and take advantage of any pleas or evidence that come up that way, and they will be able to bootstrap, to some degree, the medical evidence generated by the L.A. County coroner.”

Potential Damages

But what about damages? Would a civil lawsuit be worth it for the estate? One issue to consider is California’s cap on non-economic damages. Per the state’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, wrongful death cases due to medical malpractice are subject to a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages, such as loss of consortium or pain and suffering. Therefore, in order to receive the protection of the cap, the two defendant doctors would need to argue that the death occurred due to medical negligence.

However, the criminal indictment lowers the doctors’ chances of such a claim, since the indictment makes clear that the conduct arose outside the scope of any legitimate medical purpose or doctor-patient relationship. "It seems that would be above and beyond the scope of medical treatment,” Gruppie noted. "An enterprising plaintiffs lawyer will adopt at least some of what the feds are going with and that might be one way to get around any MICRA limits." Another California attorney, Jeff Bennion, concurred with such an analysis, explaining that “MICRA is not like diplomatic immunity, it does not protect you from liability based on your status, only when you are acting in the capacity of your professional license…It would be [applicable] if Matthew Perry was under the care and supervision of Dr. Chavez or Dr. P, but he was not. They were drug dealers to him."

Another factor to consider in any damages awards is Perry’s earning potential as a successful actor. Even if the defendants were to successfully argue MICRA’s cap applied to any civil claims, Perry’s estate would have a slew of economic damages that it could claim, such as future lost income and earnings potential, which fall outside the scope of the cap.

Overall, to maximize any deterrent effect and punishment outside of the criminal case, Perry’s estate has options that can ensure the defendant doctors are held accountable for their actions that caused Perry’s untimely passing.