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. So as I read this the one question that continues to come to me to ask is. Didn't Indiana only have a couple of exchanges for people to opt into which were very high because we really didn't want to expect the plan. So was this study done during that time and if so then I can understand these numbers. I also understand that we have now opened up for more options for hoosiers to choose from. Please correct if I'm wrong and if I'm not why was this not part of the story so that true overview could be taken away and not just parts of it to continue this negative tone against the ACA. I look forward to the clarity.

  2. It's really very simple. All forms of transportation are subsidized. All of them. Your tax money already goes toward every single form of transportation in the state. It is not a bad thing to put tax money toward mass transit. The state spends over 1,000,000,000 (yes billion) on roadway expansions and maintenance every single year. If you want to cry foul over anything cry foul over the overbuilding of highways which only serve people who can afford their own automobile.

  3. So instead of subsidizing a project with a market-driven scope, you suggest we subsidize a project that is way out of line with anything that can be economically sustainable just so we can have a better-looking skyline?

  4. Downtowner, if Cummins isn't getting expedited permitting and tax breaks to "do what they do", then I'd be happy with letting the market decide. But that isn't the case, is it?

  5. Patty, this commuter line provides a way for workers (willing to work lower wages) to get from Marion county to Hamilton county. These people are running your restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and retail stores. I don't see a lot of residents of Carmel working these jobs.