Concussion Management and the NCAA Litigation Case Essay

Concussion Management and the NCAA

Litigation Case -- Concussion Management

The case of Adrian Arrington, Derek Owens, Mark Turner and Angela Palacios v. National Collegiate Athletic Association arose from the consolidation of a On September 12, 2011, a class action filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Adrian Arrington v. NCAA, on September 12, 2011, and a second lawsuit, Derek Owens et al. v. NCAA. The complaints allege that the NCAA was negligent with regard to protecting student athletes from the risk posed by their game play and practices for concussions. The complaints extend to four distinct types of negligence as follows: fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring, unjust enrichment, and negligence. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege the following: The NCAA did not ensure that coaches received adequate education about proper tackling techniques. The NCAA did not provide education on concussion-like symptoms to student athletes, trainers, or coaches. The NCAA did not implement system-wide guidelines for return to play. The NCAA did not implement guidelines for screening and detecting injuries to the heads of student athletes. The NCAA did not implement legislation to address the treatment follow-up and eligibility for student athletes who sustained multiple concussions. And, the NCAA did not put in place support systems for student athletes who were considered "unable to play or even lead a normal life."

The plaintiffs seek to represent two nationwide classes: One inclusive class consists of NCAA student athletes who sustained concussion or suffer from concussion-like symptoms as a result of playing sports and are still experiencing the effects of those head injuries. The second class is also of NCAA student athletes who sustained concussions or did suffer concussion-like symptoms while playing sports, but who do not appear to be still experiencing the symptoms or have not have their lives fundamentally disrupted by the head injuries.In both classes, student athletes are not defined by gender or by type of sport played (read: football) as the case addresses all NCAA sponsored sports and NCAA student-athletes.

The NCAA asserts that it has consistently followed the rules and implemented the guidelines designed to protect student athletes and educate them about concussion. Moreover, the NCAA passed legislation in 2010 that required all schools that are members of the NCAA to adopt a Concussion Management Plan. With regard to the NCAA legislation, plaintiffs argue that the reporting responsibility for concussions in student athletes is borne by the athletes, as per NCAA Rule 3.2.4.17. For its part, the NCAA asserts that a fact-intensive analysis of all named players would need to take place in order to certify that student athletes belong to one class or the other. The fact-intensive analysis would require determinations about each alleged injury, the knowledge each student athlete holds with regard to concussion risks, and -- importantly -- would depend on each plaintiff's assertion that he or she relied on alleged fraudulent concealment while playing NCAA sports.

Critique of NCAA Concussion Management Plan Legislation

According to the NCAA Concussion Management Plan Guidelines, a number of people are charged with shared responsibility for protecting players from head injuries. With this pass-the-buck foundation, it is too easy for an individual to….....