# Football players sue over head injuries!



## firetender (Aug 18, 2011)

Class action suit. Full story HERE

Help me out here. 

These guys get into the fray knowing full well that in return for heaps of money for nothing more than satisfying the *Feed the Christians to the Lions* mentality of our  Society they will probably spend their lives beyond 40 years of age debilitated and probably maimed.

Isn't that the deal? Who is kidding who here?

The amount they are paid to be part of our spectacle is disgusting. Especially while you, who make a difference, get paid squat! 

I expect it's hard, having once ridden the Gravy Train for contributing nothing but money into their own and other Corporate profits, it's hard to get off.

But then, it IS in the American way for the Servants to bite the Masters in the butt until they, too, become Masters.


----------



## Tigger (Aug 19, 2011)

The compensation issues not withstanding, there was a lot wrong with how the NFL as a whole managed concussions. Change has happened in the last few years, though many wonder if it's even close to enough. One way or another, concussions are an injury that was barely, if at all, understood during the careers of many players. No doubt there was rampant mismanagement of injuries, and such mismanagement will probably continue to some degree due to the compensation at stake.

I think The New Yorker did an excellent special on this issue, but I can't dig it up. It made some pretty well supported claims that the NFL intentionally tried to cover up how unsafe the game as all the retired players began to suffer as a result of numerous, undiagnosed concussions.


----------



## mediKate (Aug 19, 2011)

Seriously?! Isn’t that kind of like me suing my EMS service for emotional abuse and sleep deprivation??? ...(which DEFINITELY causes me to walk around “in a daze” and not remember why I entered a room...)


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 19, 2011)

First off football is a private industry, they generate their own income and compensate how they see fit, the fans drive the market so if you have ever paid to see a game you have contributed to the salaries, if you don't agree with it don't line their pockets by paying ticket prices.

As far as head injuries, they  knew the risk their suing because the medical staff didnt understand or care about the cumulative damage concussions inflict.  They cleared them to play, even when they weren't physically ready or healthy causing further and irreversible damage.


----------



## Akulahawk (Aug 19, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> First off football is a private industry, they generate their own income and compensate how they see fit, the fans drive the market so if you have ever paid to see a game you have contributed to the salaries, if you don't agree with it don't line their pockets by paying ticket prices.
> 
> As far as head injuries, they  knew the risk their suing because the medical staff didnt understand or care about the cumulative damage concussions inflict.  They cleared them to play, even when they weren't physically ready or healthy causing further and irreversible damage.


They knew that they were taking risks. You're right. Pro Football is a private enterprise. Presumably, all the players were of legal age, and informed of the risks they took. When I was working at a High School and a Junior College, neither would clear an athlete that had suffered a concussion back to play until all symptoms had resolved and testing showed that there were no longer any physical effects and some good amount of time passed. In short, a concussion could easily keep an athlete benched 1/4 to 1/2 of a season. The athletes quickly learn to NOT tell anyone when they got their "bell rung" a "little bit" and that mentality stays with them. By the time someone gets caught, chances are pretty good that they've been concussed quite a few times. The Pros (especially linemen) likely get small concussions nearly every game but since they're used to the feeling, they just attribute it to just playing the game and don't consciously care to remember that they're doing damage to themselves. I'd be shocked if they weren't seriously advised of the potential problems before/during each season, and yet they know... I don't suit up, I don't earn $$,$$$. If I don't play, I don't earn $$,$$$ or even $$$,$$$ per game... 

They know this... and they're motivated to keep doing what they're doing... and now they're suing for doing the damage to themselves. I mean, gee, admit you got rung and you're out for 3 weeks... no money for you.

My thoughts on this are probably a bit different than everyone else's.


----------



## Lady_EMT (Aug 19, 2011)

Do I think everyone is a little sue happy? Yes. Do I think that this whole thing is a bit ridiculous? Sure. 

But, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. They didn't know back then that there were serious health risks associated with head injuries. Modern medicine has only recently really proven everything it has about head injuries. Back when many if these players were playing, they where considered "babies" if they complained about a "little" bump on the head. 

Just my two cents. 


---
- This post brought to you by Tapatalk


----------



## firetender (Aug 20, 2011)

Thusly inspired, I blogged it
http://emsoutsideagitator.com/2011/08/howard-cosell-would-puke/



> Lady EMT They didn't know back then that there were serious health risks associated with head injuries


 
This had been very well established in Boxing, at least 50 years ago.


----------



## Akulahawk (Aug 20, 2011)

Lady_EMT said:


> Do I think everyone is a little sue happy? Yes. Do I think that this whole thing is a bit ridiculous? Sure.
> 
> But, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment.* They didn't know back then that there were serious health risks associated with head injuries*. Modern medicine has only recently really proven everything it has about head injuries. Back when many if these players were playing, they where considered "babies" if they complained about a "little" bump on the head.
> 
> ...





firetender said:


> Thusly inspired, I blogged it
> http://emsoutsideagitator.com/2011/08/howard-cosell-would-puke/
> 
> 
> ...


Lady EMT: Thus the reason for my post above yours. Yes, they _knew_ that there were serious risks. They chose to sacrifice heath for money. There's a HUGE difference in how I'd handle a pro athlete vs one that's a school athlete. I make my recommendations to the pro athlete and the athlete is responsible for much of the ultimate decision to play or not play while still having some post-concussion symptoms. The school athlete doesn't have that choice. 

In any event, the post-concussion recommendations for collision sports have become MUCH more conservative for school athletes over what they were just 10 or 15 years ago (and I agree with it) and while pros may become more conservative/restrictive, business needs of the athlete will drive the athlete to take more risk.

Nature of beast of Professional Sports, unfortunately.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 20, 2011)

Professional athletes are still compensated when injured, there its no losing moneyon injured reserve.  Now losing a job is a possibility which in turn could cost an athlete money next contract negotiation.  I agree the mentality has always been are you injured are you hurt if your hurt you can play, injured you don't have the ability.

The problem is medical staffs have always encouraged players rop return to the game, your fine, you can't do any more damage.  They were never made aware of the significant risks involved, the media attention on these cases has always been scarce, no one ever saw the retired athlete who couldn't walk, put sentences together or feed himself, frankly no one cared.

With some high profile cases making headlines its all coming to light, severe injuries, suicides and continuous care.

I agree the athlete takes a risk, but we all do in our professions.  Does that mean the employer bears no responsibility when injuries result?

They sent them back in, and sure the player wanted to go but the medical staff knew better and allowed it, thats negligence and why these players have a big payday in their future.


----------



## Akulahawk (Aug 20, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> Professional athletes are still compensated when injured, there its no losing moneyon injured reserve.  Now losing a job is a possibility which in turn could cost an athlete money next contract negotiation.  I agree the mentality has always been are you injured are you hurt if your hurt you can play, injured you don't have the ability.
> 
> The problem is medical staffs have always encouraged players rop return to the game, your fine, you can't do any more damage.  They were never made aware of the significant risks involved, the media attention on these cases has always been scarce, no one ever saw the retired athlete who couldn't walk, put sentences together or feed himself, frankly no one cared.
> 
> ...


Some of the players may have a payday in their future... Unfortuately, assumption of risk and advisals to NOT play (given by the medical staff) will have a lot to do with how big, if at all, a player's lawsuit paycheck will be. It's a lot like the drunk you picked up. You picked him up last time. You'll pick him up next time. Each time in between, he sobers up and heads right back out and get drunk again. Chances are you're not going to be able to keep him in your facility to keep him from getting drunk for the rest of his life...

The Court is going to have to work through the balance of personal responsibility and whether or not there's any actual professional liability for the medical team to clear the players for play. This is going to be an interesting case to watch for certain!


----------



## Lady_EMT (Aug 20, 2011)

Akulahawk said:


> Lady EMT: Thus the reason for my post above yours. Yes, they _knew_ that there were serious risks. They chose to sacrifice heath for money. There's a HUGE difference in how I'd handle a pro athlete vs one that's a school athlete. I make my recommendations to the pro athlete and the athlete is responsible for much of the ultimate decision to play or not play while still having some post-concussion symptoms. The school athlete doesn't have that choice.
> 
> In any event, the post-concussion recommendations for collision sports have become MUCH more conservative for school athletes over what they were just 10 or 15 years ago (and I agree with it) and while pros may become more conservative/restrictive, business needs of the athlete will drive the athlete to take more risk.
> 
> Nature of beast of Professional Sports, unfortunately.




Yes, in recent years, they know the repercussions of having a concussion or head injury. If they choose to ignore it or try to cover it up, then it's their fault. I 100% agree with you there.

But what I'm getting as is, in the 70s and 80s, when some of these players were playing the game, they didn't know that concussions had such a serious effect on the mind. It's sort of like someone who smoked cigarettes in the 60's suing the cigarette company, because they didn't know right off the bat cigarettes caused cancer. It's an informational issue, and isn't the fault of the NFL or players. Due to recent medical discoveries, concussions were found to be more serious than a little headache and some dizzineess.

So, in short, I don't think they should be suing. But it's not 100% their fault, or the NFLs fault, or anyone's fault, that they're suffering serious health risks. I think they should be given free medical support for this problem, but that's it. No extra money.


----------



## mediKate (Aug 20, 2011)

Lady_EMT said:


> It's an informational issue, and isn't the fault of the NFL or players. Due to recent medical discoveries, concussions were found to be more serious than a little headache and some dizzineess.
> 
> So, in short, I don't think they should be suing. But it's not 100% their fault, or the NFLs fault, or *anyone's fault*, that they're suffering serious health risks. I think they should be given free medical support for this problem, but that's it. No extra money.



Well said, Lady_EMT!  
It's not really a fault that you can pinpoint on anyone.  It's unfortunate that it happened, but now that it has, the NFL needs to address the issue, and move on.  A lawsuit is not going to do anything to solve the problem.


----------



## Tigger (Aug 20, 2011)

mediKate said:


> Well said, Lady_EMT!
> It's not really a fault that you can pinpoint on anyone.  It's unfortunate that it happened, but now that it has, the NFL needs to address the issue, and move on.  A lawsuit is not going to do anything to solve the problem.



And where does just "moving on" leave the players that are now suffering from the effects of multiple concussions? 

The NFL was negligent in it's handling of concussions. They repeatedly ignored the recommendations of the neuroscience community and appointed doctors with no experience in brain injuries to lead the investigation (if it can even be called that) into gasp, brain injuries! 

Do you think that the NFL will actually surrender free medical care to these players? Suing a party isn't always so you can just get a big boatload of money. Sometimes adequate care is not appropriately delivered, and a law suit is needed to ensure it is.

If the (mostly retired) players were receiving adequate care, I don't this law suit would have a strong case.

Incidentally I think the players deserve additional compensation outside of medical bills, but that's a different issue.


Sent from my out of area communications device.


----------



## Shishkabob (Aug 20, 2011)

If you make more sitting on a bench than I will in my entire career where what I do actually matters, you can buy yourself insurance, deal with it, and cry yourself to sleep.


I'm all for capitalism, but there's a point where it pisses me the hell off, and that's when people that actually matter don't get ****, and people compensated way beyond their worth moan and complain that they aren't given enough.


----------



## dstevens58 (Aug 20, 2011)

Linuss said:


> If you make more sitting on a bench than I will in my entire career where what I do actually matters, you can buy yourself insurance, deal with it, and cry yourself to sleep.



I tend to agree.  That's what turned me away from professional football.  Back in the mid-80's when they went on strike over insurance, I was stationed in Texas.  The paper published everyone''s salary and the lowest paid member (at that time) was making something like sixteen grand a game.

If I wanted to sue all the time for misfortunes, then maybe I should sue the State since I stepped in a pothole and fractured my distal fib.  Sheesh, maybe I'm missing something here.:glare:


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 20, 2011)

Do we now base litigation on compensation?  It doesnt matter if you make one dollar or a million negligence is negligence.

If they knowingly put these players at further risk their liable.


----------



## Shishkabob (Aug 20, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> Do we now base litigation on compensation?  It doesnt matter if you make one dollar or a million negligence is negligence.



No, but I do based off stupidity and greed.



Just like the lady who sued McDonalds because of the "scalding coffee".


----------



## Sasha (Aug 20, 2011)

Linuss said:


> No, but I do based off stupidity and greed.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the lady who sued McDonalds because of the "scalding coffee".



Get your facts straight. The car was on the side of the road so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She was so badly burned that she required skin grafts.

McDonalds even admitted its coffee was too hot for initial consumption at time of sale, where its target temp is 180-190 degrees.

McDonalds was grossly negligent to serve liquid at scalding temps.

She also intially offered to settle for just the cost of her medical bills and mcdonalds refused.

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk


----------



## firetender (Aug 20, 2011)

Actually, the specific body part to me is irrelevant. My primary point is that anyone with two eyes in his head and an aspiration to get into NFL football has to realize that when he comes out, he's not going to be whole like he was coming in.

In terms of the money, I'd say a lot of them consider this "acceptable risk". The ones who don't consider this as a probability need more help than any of us can offer!

There are certainly many more injuries that will be uncovered and "typed" in NFL football, but considering it's unavoidable that injury is what they signed up for (the nature of the game, if you will), then I say, be a man and tough it out.

I thought that's what they were paid for. After all, we don't pay 100 bucks a seat to watch wimps!


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 21, 2011)

Yes lets remove a multi billion dollar entity from any responsibility, pass on the long term care, medical bills and disability to the taxpayer.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 21, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> Yes lets remove a multi billion dollar entity from any responsibility, pass on the long term care, medical bills and disability to the taxpayer.





Yes, lets remove millionaire individuals from any personal responsibility and blame the employer for the employees failure to both do due diligence and responsibility to take care of themselves.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 21, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Yes, lets remove millionaire individuals from any personal responsibility and blame the employer for the employees failure to both do due diligence and responsibility to take care of themselves.



They were informed by educated medical staff employed by NFL teams they were fine to return, they werent that constitutes negligence

If that happened in any other profession we wouldnt stand for it but because their considered over paid by some their work related injuries are dismissed, seen as wimpy, or they should have known better.

The law is the law no matter how many zeros are on your paycheck.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 21, 2011)

Except the players are also culpable for hiding their neurological state from the training and coaching staff. No play, no dinero. 

Except repeated head injuries are kinda of an obvious thing. 

Except you're bringing dollars into it too. After all, why point out that it's a business worth billions of dollars if money didn't matter? 

Except some injuries are "you should have known better" and that has nothing to do with that specific profession. It's like saying that an ambulance driver should have to be told to clear intersections instead of running red lights at 40 MPH, and failure to do so absolves the driver of any liability. 

There is no victims here. Only willful participants.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 21, 2011)

NFL players are compensated even if injured.

Yes I agree some players didnt fully disclose the extent of their injuries, but what about the players who were pressured to return by medical staff, coaches and owners?  The NFL has a well documented history of this behavior and one that will be brought to light during this court case.

If any other industry didnt fully disclose or hid the risks involved with the aspects of their profession we would crucify them. 

The employer is responsible for workplace safety, not the employee.  

We are all aware that responding to calls increases are chances of injury, is the employer now not respionsible if we are injured in the process?  

If we find out ten years down the road that constant siren use causes hearing loss, is the employer not responsible for those injuries?

I know my job is dangerous at times, so does my employer.  

I am a wilful participant, being that in no way removes the liability from my employer.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 21, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> NFL players are compensated even if injured.
> 
> Yes I agree some players didnt fully disclose the extent of their injuries, but what about the players who were pressured to return by medical staff, coaches and owners?  The NFL has a well documented history of this behavior and one that will be brought to light during this court case.



So employees aren't able to just say no?


> If any other industry didnt fully disclose or hid the risks involved with the aspects of their profession we would crucify them.



Ironic considering that the industry this forum revolves around routinely engages in high risk decisions that bears little to no benefits. 



> The employer is responsible for workplace safety, not the employee.


The employee does not get to play blissfully ignorant either, and any football player that leads with their head is solely at fault for their own long term injuries.  



> We are all aware that responding to calls increases are chances of injury, is the employer now not respionsible if we are injured in the process?


If I drive like an idiot, yes, the employer should not be responsible for my driving like an idiot. The vast majority of EMS accidents are, in the end, the result of drivers (including the ambulance driver) not engaging in defensive driving. Furthermore, I resent the implication that, in a supposed profession, the EMS crew bears no responsibility or liability for their own actions. 



> If we find out ten years down the road that constant siren use causes hearing loss, is the employer not responsible for those injuries?



Depends. If there's no evidence for the majority of that time, then no. If safety devices are provided and not used, then no. 



> I am a wilful participant, being that in no way removes the liability from my employer.


...it also doesn't absolve you from liability for their own actions nor personal responsibility.


----------



## Tigger (Aug 21, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> They were informed by educated medical staff employed by NFL teams they were fine to return, they werent that constitutes negligence.



Not only that, but the NFL willfully suppressed information that showed that their concussion management programs were very flawed. While each team runs their own medical staff, they still receive a significant degree of guidance from the NFL's own medical staff. The information on concussions that the NFL gave to individual's teams was not only inaccurate, but many of the doctors that created the NFLs concussion management policy knew that it was inaccurate and still passed it along. Surely know one can argue that the player's should have had a better understanding of concussions than the doctors that were paid to understand it and provide recommendations to a lower provider.


----------



## usalsfyre (Aug 21, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> If we find out ten years down the road that constant siren use causes hearing loss, is the employer not responsible for those injuries?


Too late, it's already been tried 

http://my.firefighternation.com/for...ettles-siren?commentId=889755:Comment:5031890. 
If you'll notice in the later part of the article, most of the claims had been dismissed. 

The employer should be responsible for known risk of employment. If something is discovered 10 years down the road, it's not really fair to hold the employer responsible for protecting against something they didn't know about is it?


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 21, 2011)

usalsfyre said:


> The employer should be responsible for known risk of employment. If something is discovered 10 years down the road, it's not really fair to hold the employer responsible for protecting against something they didn't know about is it?



Heresy! Long live the proletariat! Everything bad is the fault of the evil, thieving bourgeoisie!


----------

