IBJNews

NCAA rejects claims in concussion lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Rejecting claims made in a lawsuit concerning concussions, the NCAA said Saturday it has taken steps to protect student athletes from head injuries and that player safety is among the college sports association's core principles.

Attorneys suing the Indianapolis-based NCAA over its handling of head injuries asked a federal judge Friday to let them expand the lawsuit to include thousands of plaintiffs nationwide. The motion seeking class-action status was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, where the original lawsuit was filed in 2011 on behalf of former Eastern Illinois football player Adrian Arrington and several other former athletes.

"Student-athlete safety is one of the NCAA's foundational principles," said spokeswoman Stacey Osburn. "The NCAA has been at the forefront of safety issues throughout its existence."

She said the association has addressed the issue of head injuries through a combination of playing rules, equipment requirements and medical practices. The NCAA does not believe the legal action is appropriate, Osburn said.

Concussions have become a major concern in sports in recent years. The NFL, NHL and college football, among others, have implemented stricter rules on hits to the head and player safety. The NFL is involved in a lawsuit involving more than 4,000 former players seeking millions of dollars for problems they blame on head injuries suffered during their careers.

Attached to the class-action request from those suing the NCAA is a report for the plaintiffs by a leading authority on concussions, Robert Cantu, who cites an internal NCAA survey from 2010. He said the NCAA found that nearly half of the college trainers who responded to the survey indicated they put athletes showing signs of a concussion back into the same game.

"It is well settled in the scientific community that an athlete must never be returned to play on the same day after a concussion diagnosis," said Cantu, who is medical director of the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research in Chapel Hill, N.C.

The plaintiffs say the NCAA was lax in establishing a clear policy about dealing with concussions, leaving key decisions to individual schools or leagues.

Arrington contends he suffered "numerous and repeated concussions" at Eastern Illinois. He is seeking unspecified monetary damages and changes in policy, including the establishment of a long-term medical monitoring program for injured athletes and new concussion guidelines for schools and coaches.

The NCAA said it has taken recent steps to increase awareness of how to treat possible head injuries, from legislation and outreach efforts to new rules on the playing field. On Friday, the NCAA said it was awarding a $399,999 grant to fund a study into the long-term effects of head injuries in college sports.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT