Appeals court denies rehearing request in concussion settlement

AP

The concussion settlement is getting closer and closer to becoming official, nearly three years after it officially was negotiated.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied the request for a rehearing before the full court of the ruling that upheld the settlement. Nine former players, continuing their fight against a deal they deemed flawed and unfair, had pushed for a rehearing, further delaying the payout of settlement funds to qualifying former players.

“We are pleased with the Third Circuit’s decision to deny the appellants’ requests for an en banc rehearing,” attorney Christopher Seeger said in a statement. “These objections have now been turned aside three times: by the District Court, a unanimous three judge panel from the Third Circuit and the full Third Circuit without one judge dissenting.

“These meritless appeals have come with devastating consequences for the thousands of retired NFL players suffering from neurocognitive injuries, and those concerned about their future, as they have been forced to wait even longer for the immediate care and support they need and deserve. We hope these objectors will consider the over 20,000 retired players and their families that support this agreement before filing additional appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court that will only extend these delays further. We will continue to forcefully defend this important settlement should they decide to move forward with the appeals process.”

Seeger is right. The process needs to end. It’s one thing for Patriots quarterback Tom Brady to pursue all appeals of his four-game suspension; no one else’s interests are directly tied to the case or the delays arising from the endless efforts to block the ban. In this case, others who want to obtain compensation are being forced to wait even longer because a very small fraction of retired players keep fighting a losing battle.

The next battle could come in the U.S. Supreme Court, where the former players who don’t like the settlement have the right to inject even more delay into the process by filing a petition for the highest court in the land to take up the case. Here’s hoping the players who object to the settlement finally do the right thing by doing nothing.

Speaking of Brady, the timeline arising from the Third Circuit’s handling of the rehearing request could shed some light on the amount of time necessary for the Second Circuit to rule on Brady’s request for a rehearing. In the concussion case, the request was made on April 28, and the decision came on June 1. By late June, the Second Circuit could be issuing a ruling in Brady’s case.

6 responses to “Appeals court denies rehearing request in concussion settlement

  1. If the third circuit court refuses to hear something as important as the concussion settlement, it would be a legal travesty for the second circuit to then turn around and hear Brady’s appeal. When you consider CTE, brain injuries and the lives our NFL vets are facing and the courts won’t even hear an appeal to allow them to get greater compensation if another jurisdiction then turns around and decides to re-hear the Brady case over something as stupid as deflated balls when anyone with any common sense knows that by destroying his phone (as the second court ruled) was a virtual admission of guilt and not acceptable at any level as far as interfering with a legitimate investigation.

  2. xinellum says:
    Jun 2, 2016 10:00 AM
    If the third circuit court refuses to hear something as important as the concussion settlement, it would be a legal travesty for the second circuit to then turn around and hear Brady’s appeal.
    ————————–

    There is nothing analogous to the two cases. In one instance you have a carefully crafted settlement that thousands have agreed to in the other you have an arbitration decision made by a clearly biased arbitrator who violated the standards of federal labor law and the agreement he had a duty to represent.

  3. Brady’s appeals hurt the coaches ability to do his job. For one, they wouldn’t have needed to draft a QB if he had not appealed. That’s a fairly high draft pick that could have been used elsewhere.

  4. rogerdw66 says:
    Jun 2, 2016 11:18 AM
    Brady’s appeals hurt the coaches ability to do his job. For one, they wouldn’t have needed to draft a QB if he had not appealed. That’s a fairly high draft pick that could have been used elsewhere.
    *******************************************
    If its a problem for Belichick I am sure he will let Brady know.

  5. Lets see…One case has federal judges evenly divided and the other case has all the federal judges in agreement. Does not sound like they are particularly analogous to me.

  6. Theyt not analogous…one is aboutvan important issue, the health of thousands of lied to players, the other is a ridiculous case affecting one person. You can argue it has wider implications, but that’s stretching the truth.

    Any collectively bargained agreement should have agreed upon disciplinary procedures in place and most already do. That’s why it’s do hard to fire for poor performance in a union environment unless there’s a blatant violation. The fact that the NFL and NFLPA didn’t make theirs specific enough has come back to haunt them. In practical reality, this case has little effect on most labor contracts and arbitrations because the procedures are set.

    My guess is that the people filing briefs are on the far left of the political labor spectrum, and the judges know this (afl-cio is). How far left or right they lean will likely determine if they even consider it.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.