NCAA concussion cases sent to Chicago by U.S. judges’ panel

Bloomberg News
December 18, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ten lawsuits accusing the Indianapolis-based National Collegiate Athletic Association of concealing the long-term risks of concussions sustained in student sports must be litigated in Chicago, a federal judges’ panel ruled.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which heard arguments on Dec. 5 over where to group the cases for the exchange of evidence and pre-trial rulings, Wednesday selected Chicago, where the first of the class actions was filed in 2011.

While that first case, brought by one-time Eastern Illinois University football team captain Adrian Arrington, wasn’t focused only on football, most of the cases that followed it involve “nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims,” the judges said.

“We find that these actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses,” promoting efficient litigation, according to the panel ruling.

All of the lawsuits seek court-ordered medical monitoring for their varying groups of former student athletes who sustained concussions or concussion-like symptoms.

Medical monitoring

Similar allegations lodged by professional football players against the NFL resulted in a $765 million settlement in August, which included a medical monitoring program.

The NCAA denies it was negligent.

“The association has specifically addressed the issue of head injuries through a combination of playing rules, equipment requirements, and medical best practices,” Stacey Osburn, an NCAA spokeswoman, said this month. “We continue to believe our policies and rules address student-athlete safety, and do not believe the individual or proposed class action allegations are appropriate.”

The concussion cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee, who is presiding over Arrington’s litigation.

“We have expended nearly 8,000 hours conducting discovery,” including review of evidence and taking depositions, Arrington lawyer Elizabeth Fegan told the panel at the Dec. 5 hearing in Las Vegas, arguing for its selection of Chicago.

A request to certify two proposed plaintiffs’ classes is already before the judge, she said.

While the NCAA supported consolidation of the cases in Chicago, lawyers for a separate group of plaintiffs that sued the association and two helmet makers asked the panel to leave their suit in the Indiana capital where it was filed.

Attorneys for the helmet makers, Riddell Inc. and Kranos Corp., which does business as Schutt Sports, also opposed including their clients’ sole case with the others.

The panel agreed to sever those claims and leave them in the Indianapolis court.

“It seems unlikely that the products liability claims would share sufficient overlap with the common claims against the NCAA to warrant inclusion in centralized proceedings,” the judges said.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. With Pence running the ship good luck with a new government building on the site. He does everything on the cheap except unnecessary roads line a new beltway( like we need that). Things like state of the art office buildings and light rail will never be seen as an asset to these types. They don't get that these are the things that help a city prosper.

  2. Does the $100,000,000,000 include salaries for members of Congress?

  3. "But that doesn't change how the piece plays to most of the people who will see it." If it stands out so little during the day as you seem to suggest maybe most of the people who actually see it will be those present when it is dark enough to experience its full effects.

  4. That's the mentality of most retail marketers. In this case Leo was asked to build the brand. HHG then had a bad sales quarter and rather than stay the course, now want to go back to the schlock that Zimmerman provides (at a considerable cut in price.) And while HHG salesmen are, by far, the pushiest salesmen I have ever experienced, I believe they are NOT paid on commission. But that doesn't mean they aren't trained to be aggressive.

  5. The reason HHG's sales team hits you from the moment you walk through the door is the same reason car salesmen do the same thing: Commission. HHG's folks are paid by commission they and need to hit sales targets or get cut, while BB does not. The sales figures are aggressive, so turnover rate is high. Electronics are the largest commission earners along with non-needed warranties, service plans etc, known in the industry as 'cheese'. The wholesale base price is listed on the cryptic price tag in the string of numbers near the bar code. Know how to decipher it and you get things at cost, with little to no commission to the sales persons. Whether or not this is fair, is more of a moral question than a financial one.