{ "docId": "019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-bca3fd68622d", "docSlug": "4c8fe6013c68", "documentTitle": "iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (IRTC)", "authorId": "54_Spruce_Point_Capital", "authorName": "Spruce Point Capital Management", "documentKindSlug": "activist-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Activist deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "short_seller", "sourceTypeLabel": "Short seller", "presentationDate": "2025-08-18 00:00:00", "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.3333334, "pageNumber": 42, "pageCount": 101, "prevPage": 41, "nextPage": 43, "slideType": "expose_contradiction", "function": "expose_contradiction", "density": "overcrowded", "nDataPoints": 0, "notes": "Uses direct quotes from a legal complaint to build a case of corporate misconduct.", "elementsJson": [ "headline_text", "callout_box", "paragraph", "footnote" ], "metadataConfidence": 1, "imagePath": null, "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-bca3fd68622d/42", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-bca3fd68622d", "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-bca3fd68622d.json", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-bca3fd68622d#slide-42", "components": [ { "bbox": { "h": 0.04, "w": 0.96, "x": 0.02, "y": 0.3 }, "kind": "callout", "text": "Excerpts From Glazing v iRhythm Second Amended Complaint", "attrs": null, "subkind": "primary", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "9b36479a-4ea4-490b-bc5e-e7cb1889ff97", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": null, "kind": "callout", "text": "As referenced in a pending shareholder lawsuit (Glazing v iRhythm), following iRhythm’s receipt of the additional Form 483s in July 2024, Capitol Forum revealed that former employees of iRhythm accused the Company of directing them to delete patient data from its final reports that was not transmitted (and thus subject to physician notification) during the wear period.", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": "Visual emphasis", "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd953-0395-748f-9567-28ca29a7b136", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.25, "w": 0.96, "x": 0.02, "y": 0.36 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "Alarmingly, the Capitol Forum’s interviews with former iRhythm CCTs revealed that the Company was directing and training CCTs to provide inaccurate reports to patients and doctors in order to make the final report “match” the reporting transmitted during the wear period. The report stated, ‘Both former iRhythm CCTs said that they were often countermanded by iRhythm when they identified cardiac events that would [have] been classified as arrhythmias at other companies and tried to include them in final reports.’ These final reports were issued to doctors once the patient’s wear period had ended. One of the CCTs observed that “we were told that it is ‘important that the final report match what the patient experienced during wear time.’” Thus, if the CCT found “a life-threatening arrhythmia while doing the final report, and said lifethreatening arrhythmia was not found during the wear time . . . I do not mention the life threatening arrhythmia I found on the final report the doctor sees.”", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "3d5badbe-89df-4938-95ff-c2f6a0705e8b", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.15, "w": 0.96, "x": 0.02, "y": 0.62 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "According to FE 3, the Company wanted to show doctors very “clean” reports instead of “ugly” reports because the Company wanted to maintain the appearance that the Zio AT gave perfect data every time. When a report was “ugly,” technicians were sometimes instructed to “artifact” the data in question—which resulted in deletion of the data, and it would never be seen by the patient’s physician in the final report. Whenever FE 3 asked about a questionable arrhythmia, FE 3 was told not to “post” it for the physician’s review. FE 3 stated that providing “cleaner” reports to physicians was prioritized over simply providing the information to the physician for the physician’s evaluation.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "56e5f75f-0603-4239-85db-8b564a89dc26", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.1, "w": 0.96, "x": 0.02, "y": 0.78 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "One of the CCTs further explained, “There would be times when during the final report, myself or others would find what we consider to be 3rd degree or complete heart block (for example). We would include it in the final report only for QA leadership to downplay it and say, “That is not complete heart block. That is only first degree with non-conducted pvc,”a much less non-life threatening rhythm.”", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "6729f98f-5219-4f47-be56-0b49282e2468", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.12, "w": 0.96, "x": 0.02, "y": 0.17 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "As referenced in a pending shareholder lawsuit (Glazing v iRhythm), following iRhythm’s receipt of the additional Form 483s in July 2024, Capitol Forum revealed that former employees of iRhythm accused the Company of directing them to delete patient data from its final reports that was not transmitted (and thus subject to physician notification) during the wear period. If true, this would have deprived physicians of potentially important information used to diagnose their patients’ cardiac health.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "8f32a849-ec8d-499c-8eec-41302f403d90", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": null, "kind": "quote", "text": "“we were told that it is ‘important that the final report match what the patient experienced during wear time.’” — Former iRhythm CCT", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": "Authority citation", "toolSlug": "authority-citation", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd953-0395-748f-9567-2e94049fa6dd", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.02, "w": 0.5, "x": 0.02, "y": 0.96 }, "kind": "source-note", "text": "Source: Glazing v iRhythm second amended complaint (Case No. 3:24-cv-706-JSC document 43)", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "77712d6f-c860-4057-86e2-cf2ff9d655ae", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.08, "w": 0.65, "x": 0.305, "y": 0.03 }, "kind": "title", "text": "Equally Alarming Are Subsequent Revelations Suggesting Broader Systemic Issues At iRhythm", "attrs": null, "subkind": "headline", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "9c2bec2e-c57d-4edf-a780-a7e18d6aa911", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null } ], "metrics": [], "tools": [], "frameworks": [ { "name": "fraud-exposure", "slug": null, "matchId": "cc4dc4a2-6e5f-463a-a076-94237a5903c5", "evidence": "Uses legal complaint excerpts to expose alleged systemic data manipulation.", "confidence": 0.9 } ], "arcBeats": [ { "to": 57, "from": 41, "beatId": "03d3d92f-7e30-44d5-bc2e-ebe3067ddf10", "arcName": "Overcoming the Monster", "arcSlug": "overcoming-monster", "beatName": "Problem Statement", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "The document outlines various problems with iRhythm's business strategy and growth prospects.", "position": 3, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "loops": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }