Skip to content

New concussion lawsuit could be hard for NFL to win early

chiefs_20111221204601_640_480 Getty Images

The pending $765 million concussion settlement gives the NFL one very significant benefit:  The ability to pull the plug on litigation before anyone knows what the league knew and when the league knew it about the long-term effects of head injuries.

That benefit could be undermined by a new lawsuit brought by a group of players who could have the ability to take a blow torch down the rabbit hole.

Earlier this week, five former members of the Chiefs filed suit in Missouri against only the Chiefs.  The quintet of Chiefs all played during the six-year window from 1987 through 1993 when the NFL had no labor deal in place.  This means that the league’s strongest threshold argument against players who played under a labor deal — that they can’t sue in court for concussions but must seek relief under the collectively-bargained contract — won’t be available to the league or to the Chiefs.

Another factor that makes the Chiefs a viable target comes from a Missouri law that allows employees who chose not to seek workers’ compensation benefits to file suit instead.  The window created by that 2005 Missouri law closes on December 31, 2013.

Then there’s the issue of the statute of limitations, which in most jurisdictions gives only two years after a plaintiff knew or should have known about the violation of his rights.  The lawsuit, a copy of which was forwarded to PFT by the attorneys who filed it, explains that the pending class action in Pennsylvania delays the expiration of the deadline for suing.

The motivation to sue comes in large part from the fact that the proposed settlement potentially would give these five plaintiffs nothing.

“I think all of our clients were disappointed,” lawyer Ken McClain said regarding the broader settlement, via the Kansas City Star.  “It doesn’t appear that they will receive any compensation from it; it only affects players with very severe injuries, those that have dementia or currently diagnosed cognitive skills.”

McClain is right.  Although all retired players will be included within the global settlement, only players with a “severe cognitive impairment” will be eligible for compensation.  Under the new lawsuit filed against the Chiefs, no such restrictions will apply.

It’s unknown whether other lawsuits are planned.  The decision of these five players to proceed with a new lawsuit shows that some players (especially those not bound by the requirements of a federally-recognized Collective Bargaining Agreement) may decide to opt out of the settlement and roll the dice, if for no reason other than to force the NFL to answer questions and disclose documents regarding the league’s alleged efforts to conceal information about the risks of concussions.

But here’s the catch.  (And there’s always a catch.)  The bulk of the NFL’s alleged efforts to deny reality and hide the truth came under the auspices of the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, which was formed in 1994, after a federal labor deal returned to the NFL.

As a result, any former player who hopes to expose the worst of the league’s alleged misconduct will still have to persuade a judge to ignore the terms of a labor deal that slams the door on most if not all civil lawsuits that a player could pursue on his own.

This also means that the players who fit within with 1987-93 window will have to conjure evidence that, as of 1987 through 1993, the league knew more than it admitted about the true risks of concussions.  Or, at a minimum, that the league should have known more than it did.

While that burden may not be insurmountable, it would be a lot easier to be able to point to the efforts from 1994 through 2009 to deny and ignore the evidence of the concussion risks.

Permalink 3 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Kansas City Chiefs, Rumor Mill
3 Responses to “New concussion lawsuit could be hard for NFL to win early”
  1. FinFan68 says: Dec 5, 2013 10:11 AM

    This is a flat out money-grab. These lawyers and their clients should be ashamed. They are claiming that the settlement is unfair because it only applies to players who have severe injuries. That means that these guys have no injuries or injuries that are not considered to be severe or life-impacting. The lawyers sought out these particular players in order to circumvent the CBA limitations. They are well beyond the statute of limitations and this kind of garbage is what gives the system and certain lawyers a bad reputation. I fail to see how a pending class-action lawsuit in Pennsylvania, that these plaintiffs chose to opt out of, would have any impact on Missouri law pertaining to lawsuit time-limits in Missouri. With no studies involved in this dispute, how is it that the league “should have known” but the players themselves are expected to be the dumbest people on the planet and completely incapable of determining that violent collisions on a daily basis might not be very healthy over the long term. I truly hope that it is dismissed the second it hits the courts and these guys and their lawyers are forced to pay for any/all costs related to this frivolous lawsuit.

  2. fumblenuts says: Dec 5, 2013 11:13 AM

    How does colleges get off the hook in all of this when concussions are involved?

  3. jamesherbertharrison says: Dec 6, 2013 9:33 AM

    This has the potential of destroying the game. Football is a rough and dangerous sport, a fact that has never been a secret. If someone doesn’t want to risk injury, don’t play football. What’s next, race driver’s suing Nascar, Indycar, the NHRA, or the race track owners? These athletes are paid huge amounts of money to perform in sports that they know are dangerous. This is just another boom for greedy trial lawyers. and is another disgrace to a free country, a country that is becoming less and less free every day.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!