Edited Feb.13 at 8:00pm
As of Friday February 10th, 29 concussion-related lawsuits have been filed against the NFL. The additional lawsuits not mentioned in this article are listed below: two wrongful deaths (Hilgenberg & Duranko) and Adams v. NFL and Henesey v. NFL.
On Friday, the twenty-fifth concussion-related lawsuit was filed against the NFL. The rainmakers at the Locks Law Firm filed their fifth lawsuit on behalf of the former players. The lawsuit is a mass tort naming 62 plaintiffs, including Jeremiah Trotter and Seth Joyner. The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned Steve Everitt et al v. NFL. The lawsuit is identical to the other suits filed by the Locks Firm, asserting seven counts against the NFL: 1) declaratory relief, 2) conspiracy to defraud, 3) fraudulent concealment, 4) fraud, 5) negligent misrepresentation, 6) negligence and 7) loss of consortium on behalf of the players’ wives.
The lawsuit also includes several elderly former players, including 85-year-old Fred Morrison, 81-year-old Bill Howton and 79-year-old Richard Bielski. It will be interesting to see how their age impacts their claims for relief. The NFL will likely argue that during their career the science of concussions was completely unknown, and these players were bound to have later-life cognitive decline despite playing football.
There are now twenty-five lawsuits filed against the NFL; this “tag-along action” will eventually be consolidated with the MDL, NFL Concussion Injury Litigation.
Lawsuit total:
Easterling v. NFL (Aug. 17) E.D. Penn
Pear v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Barnes v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Maxwell v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Hardman v. NFL (Oct. 13; voluntarily dismissed)
Finn v. NFL (Dec. 5) NJ
Jacobs v. NFL (Dec. 20) NY-Manhattan
Levens v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Lewis v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Stewart v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Kuykendall v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Jones v. NFL (Dec. 22) MIA
Rucker v. NFL (Dec. 27) NY
Boyd v. NFL (Jan. 9) E.D. Penn
Dronett v. NFL (Jan. 9) ATL
Austin v. NFL (Jan. 9) ATL
Ron Solt v. NFL (Jan.18) E.D. Penn
Joel Steed v. NFL (Jan. 19) CA
Andrew Glover v. NFL (Jan. 19) E.D. Penn
Rob Johnson v. NFL (Jan. 20) E.D. Penn
Steve Wallace v. NFL (Jan. 23) E.D. Penn
Shawn Wooden & Ryan Fowler v. NFL (Jan. 24) Miami
Fred Barnett et al v. NFL (Feb. 2) E.D. Penn
Ashley Lelie et al v. NFL (Feb. 3) E.D. Penn
Britt Hager et al v. NFL (Feb. 3) E.D. Penn
Estate of Wally Hilgenberg v. NFL (Feb. 3) E.D. Penn
Estate of Pete Duranko v. NFL.(Feb. 9) E.D. Penn
Adams v. NFL (Feb. 9) E.D. Penn
Steve Everitt et al v. NFL (Feb. 10) E.D. Penn
Henesey v. NFL (Feb. 10) E.D. Penn
This will be a several part series discussing the allegations of the lawsuits and the arguments the players and the NFL will make. Part I will provide a short background discussing the allegations of the lawsuits. The allegations come directly from the lawsuits and do not reflect the opinion of the author.
Part I: How we got here
Over the past ten months, nearly 2,500 former NFL players have launched an assault against the NFL for its alleged concealment of the risks related to concussions.
Many fans will argue that it’s a no-brainer that repeated blows to the head cause later-life cognitive impairment. For example, look at the Great Muhammad Ali, after several years of boxing he now suffers from Parkinson’s, which some neurologist link to repeated hits to the head.
Likewise, former NFL players suffering (or living with the fear of suffering) with brain disease claim that the NFL is responsible for their injuries. But why do the former players think the NFL is responsible?
It all started in 1994 when the NFL created the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee (MTBIC). The mission of the MTBIC was to study the effects of concussions and to implement rules and guidelines to protect players from concussions. The Committee was led by Drs. Elliot Pellman, Ira Casson, and David Viano.
The neurological community was also conducting similar studies. According to Dr. Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist, “The concept of permanent brain damage and dementia following repeated blows to the head is a very well established and generally accepted principle in medicine.”
Despite this generally accepted principle, it is widely reported that the MTBIC spent over a decade refuting the link between concussions and long-term brain injuries. All of the lawsuits include allegations that the NFL engaged in a misinformation campaign that led to the following conclusions:
- Returning to play after a concussion “does not involve significant risk of a second injury either in the same game or during the season.”
- There is “no evidence of worsening injury or chronic cumulative effects of multiple MTBIs [mild traumatic brain injuries] in NFL players.”
- “Many NFL players can be safely allowed to return to play on the day of injury” and that “the current decision making of NFL team physicians seems appropriate for return to the game after a concussion.”
- And potentially the most damning action came from an interview in 2007 of Dr. Casson on HBO’s Real Time Sports.
Now that you know the potent allegations the plaintiffs’ lawyers plan on using to prove the NFL’s culpability, let’s discuss the lawsuits.
Updated 5/23/12
As of May 22, 2012, eighty-one lawsuits have been filed against the NFL. The lawsuits assert claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring, conspiracy, one wrongful death claim, and loss of consortium on behalf of the players’ wives.
Essentially, the plaintiffs argue that the NFL and its employees knew about the risks of concussions and instead of confronting the issue, it spent several years concealing the truth while profiting immensely at the expense of the players’ health.
You may wonder why the lawsuits don’t name the doctors as defendants. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior (aka vicarious liability) the employer (NFL) is responsible for the negligent actions of its employees.
The MTBI Committee and its members (Drs. Pellman, Viano and Casson) were employees of the NFL. As such, the NFL would be liable for the alleged negligent and fraudulent actions of the Committee. Specifically because the doctors were acting within the scope of their employment and under the supervision of their employer (NFL).
The lawyers did not name the doctors individually as a defendant because the NFL was purportedly responsible for creating and monitoring the actions of the Committee, and furthermore, the NFL is the one with the deep pockets.
If a judgment is rendered against the NFL, the NFL could attempt to seek indemnification from the members of the Committee. In other words, the NFL would ultimately be responsible, but it could try to make the doctors contribute money for the damages.
The NFL, in theory, could potentially be liable for several billion dollars. For example, the average cost of health care for a former player suffering with a brain injury is estimated at nearly $88,000 per year. Take this number and multiply it by the number of potential plaintiffs that could join the lawsuits, at least 7,000, and then multiply the sum by the average player’s remaining life expectancy. This gives you a glimpse of the astronomical numbers the NFL could be on the hook for in damages and future medical monitoring.
The Panel on multidistrict litigation (MDL), on January 31st, heard arguments to determine if the twenty-four lawsuits should be consolidated and transferred in front of a single judge. The Panel ruled that the pending lawsuits should be sent to Judge Brody in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This ruling sets the stage for pretrial proceedings to begin. The plaintiffs’ lawyers will have to work together to draft a master complaint, and then overcome the NFL’s motion to dismiss in order to keep the lawsuits in court. If the plaintiffs overcome the motion to dismiss, which likely won’t be decided until early 2013, full-blown discovery will begin and then another round of briefing (class certification and summary judgment) will take place.
Assuming the plaintiffs survive the motion to dismiss, pretrial proceedings will last throughout 2013 and 2014 and a trial date, if any, wouldn’t be set until at least late 2015. If a trial were to take place, the lawsuits would be sent back to the court where they originated. For example, Dorsey Levens’ lawsuit was filed in Atlanta, but due to the creation of the MDL it was sent to Philadelphia, if the lawsuit is set for trial it would take place in Atlanta.
There is also a chance that Judge Brody might suggest a bellwether case, so the parties can try one case and have it be an indicator for the future lawsuits. If the plaintiffs were to win a bellwether case, then the NFL would likely enter into a global settlement. On the other hand, if plaintiffs lose, then there would likely be multiple trials throughout the country, with each lawyer believing that his case is stronger than the bellwether case. Of course, the short-term goal for the plaintiffs is that the NFL will reassess its position, if it loses the motion to dismiss, and start talking a global settlement.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) conditionally ruled that the eleven pending lawsuits filed outside the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will be transferred to Judge Anita Brody. The Order is conditioned upon Judge Brody’s consent, which should be granted.
This Order sets the stage for pretrial proceedings to begin.
Updated February 6 at 7:49 am
But wait, there’s more! On Friday, I received a press release (below) from the Locks Law firm. The Locks Law Firm has filed two additional lawsuits against the NFL. The first suit is Ashley Lelie et al v. NFL and the second suit is Britt Hager et al v. NFL, the suits are identical, asserting seven counts against the NFL: 1) declaratory relief, 2) conspiracy to defraud, 3) fraudulent concealment, 4) fraud, 5) negligent misrepresentation, 6) negligence and 7) loss of consortium on behalf of the players’ wives.
The Locks Law Firm has filed four lawsuits against the NFL: three mass torts and one class action, representing more than fifty former players and their wives.
Pro Football Hall of Fame Running Back Leroy Kelly
and Nine Former Philadelphia Eagles Join Locks Law Firm Brain Injury Suit Against NFL
Two Additional Suits Filed for 50 Players with Concussions
Philadelphia – Feb. 3, 2012 – Locks Law Firm attorneys Gene Locks, Michael Leh and David Langfitt today filed two additional lawsuits in Philadelphia against the NFL on behalf of 50 former NFL players. The first suit includes eight former players and five spouses, and the second suit includes 42 former players and 23 spouses. The named players include Leroy Kelly, a Hall of Fame running back, and former Philadelphia Eagles Britt Hager and Keith Byars.
The suit charges that the NFL and other defendants intentionally and fraudulently misrepresented and/or concealed medical evidence about the short and long-term risks regarding repetitive traumatic brain injury and concussions and failed to warn players that they risked permanent brain damage if they returned to play too soon after sustaining a concussion.
“The NFL knew about the debilitating and permanent effects of head injuries and concussions that regularly occur among professional players, yet ignored and actively concealed the risks,” said Locks. “And these players’ problems don’t just impact themselves — they affect their wives, their children and their families as well as their ability to earn a living because many are nowhere close to being able to retire.”
The suit filed by Locks Law attorneys Gene Locks, Michael Leh and David Langfitt charges that the NFL voluntarily joined the scientific research as well as public and private discussions regarding the relationship between concussions and brain impairment when it created the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) Committee in 1994. Rather than naming a noted neurologist to chair this committee, it appointed Dr. Elliott Pellman, a rheumatologist who was a paid physician and trainer for the New York Jets, a conflict of interest, and had training in the treatment of joints and muscles, not head injuries. While the committee was established with the stated purpose of researching and lessening the impact of concussions on NFL players, it failed to inform them of the true risks associated with head trauma.
“This suit is about what’s fair. The NFL needs to have these veteran players tested, and provide treatment and compensation to these heroes for the brain damage they sustained during their professional careers,” said Locks.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It seeks medical monitoring, compensation, and financial recovery for the short-term, long-term, and chronic injuries, financial and intangible losses, and expenses for the individual former and present NFL players and their spouses.
Lawsuit total:
Easterling v. NFL (Aug. 17) E.D. Penn
Pear v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Barnes v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Maxwell v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Hardman v. NFL (Oct. 13; voluntarily dismissed)
Finn v. NFL (Dec. 5) NJ
Jacobs v. NFL (Dec. 20) NY-Manhattan
Levens v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Lewis v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Stewart v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Kuykendall v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Jones v. NFL (Dec. 22) MIA
Rucker v. NFL (Dec. 27) NY
Boyd v. NFL (Jan. 9) E.D. Penn
Dronett v. NFL (Jan. 9) ATL
Austin v. NFL (Jan. 9) ATL
Ron Solt v. NFL (Jan.18) E.D. Penn
Joel Steed v. NFL (Jan. 19) CA
Andrew Glover v. NFL (Jan. 19) E.D. Penn
Rob Johnson v. NFL (Jan. 20) E.D. Penn
Steve Wallace v. NFL (Jan. 23) E.D. Penn
Shawn Wooden & Ryan Fowler v. NFL (Jan. 24) Miami
Fred Barnett et al v. NFL (Feb. 2) E.D. Penn
Ashley Lelie et al v. NFL (Feb. 3) E.D. Penn
Britt Hager et al v. NFL (Feb. 3) E.D. Penn
Former players, Fred Barnett, Andrew Glover, JoJuan Armour, Jamaica Rector, and Kywin Supernaw filed the twenty-second lawsuit against the NFL today. The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and it should eventually become a “tag-along” action, joining the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) #2323 NFL Concussion Injury Litigation.
The lawsuit alleges the same facts as the other twenty-one lawsuits, and it includes the additional allegation, similar to the Finn lawsuit, regarding the administration of Toradol. The lawyers that filed the Finn lawsuit (James Cecchi and Christopher Seeger) are also named as counsel to the Barnett suit.
Furthermore, Andrew Glover has already brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other retired and former players. It is unclear whether that lawsuit will be dismissed or if he will be dropped as a plaintiff in the current suit. Most likely, this was done for strategic purposes in case the putative class Glover seeks to represent is certified.
This “strategy” is going on elsewhere; there are a handful of plaintiffs that are also a named plaintiff in related suits. It’s clear that the plaintiffs’ lawyers are already starting to work together. Once the remaining lawsuits are consolidated and transferred to Judge Brody, the plaintiffs’ lawyers will have to determine what lawsuit the player will be a party to.
The lawyers not yet a party to the MDL expect Judge Brody to request that the other lawsuits be transferred to her court. This should occur within the next few weeks.
Easterling v. NFL (Aug. 17) E.D. Penn
Pear v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Barnes v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Maxwell v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Hardman v. NFL (Oct. 13; voluntarily dismissed)
Finn v. NFL (Dec. 5) NJ
Jacobs v. NFL (Dec. 20) NY-Manhattan
Levens v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Lewis v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Stewart v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Kuykendall v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Jones v. NFL (Dec. 22) MIA
Rucker v. NFL (Dec. 27) NY
Boyd v. NFL (Jan. 9) E.D. Penn
Dronett v. NFL (Jan. 9) ATL
Austin v. NFL (Jan. 9) ATL
Ron Solt v. NFL (Jan.18) E.D. Penn
Joel Steed v. NFL (Jan. 19) CA
Andrew Glover v. NFL (Jan. 19) E.D. Penn
Rob Johnson v. NFL (Jan. 20) E.D. Penn
Steve Wallace v. NFL (Jan. 23) E.D. Penn
Shawn Wooden & Ryan Fowler v. NFL (Jan. 24) Miami
Fred Barnett et al v. NFL (Feb. 2) E.D. Penn
Corrected at 4:29 pm
As expected, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the NFL’s motion to transfer and consolidate four (Easterling, Maxwell, Pear & Barnes) pending lawsuits to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuits will be assigned to Judge Anita B. Brody. The Panel’s decision was based upon judicial economy and the lawsuits share common questions of fact (i.e. whether concussions while playing in the NFL caused long-term brain damage). The other (17) pending lawsuits may potentially become “tag-along actions,” and if so, they will join the four lawsuits.
In addition, the Panel ruled that the Riddell defendant’s objection to the transfer is overruled since it has also been named as a defendant in at least three of the pending lawsuits. The Panel stated, it is unclear “how closely related the claims against the Riddell defendants are to the claims against the NFL.” Therefore, it will be up to Judge Brody to determine if the Riddell defendant’s claims should be severed and remanded to the transferor court or remain in front of the transferee court.
As an aside, the term “transferee court” is used to describe the court where the lawsuits will be transferred. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania will be called the transferee court, and Jude Brody will be referred to as the transferee judge. Judy Brody will have complete jurisdiction over the lawsuits.
Jude Brody’s first goal–after the other tag-along actions are transferred to her–will be to schedule a conference and have the lawyers appoint lead counsel and a steering committee. The reasoning for this is to ensure that all common questions of law and fact are fairly represented. Since there are over thirty lawyers with varying skills and styles, designating a leader to orchestrate the lawsuits is supposed to be efficient and preserve judicial resources.
Next, the plaintiffs may file a master complaint, which is simply used as an administrative tool. The only wrinkle will be that not all of the lawsuits named Riddell Helmets as a defendant. The plaintiffs may agree to add Riddell as a defendant, dismiss Riddell, or create two separate master complaints naming each defendant.
Finally, motion practice will begin. The defendants will file its motion to dismiss, and argue, among other things, that these lawsuits do not belong in court because this is a labor dispute covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Then the plaintiffs will respond, and once the issues are fully briefed, Judge Brody will decide if the claims are barred by the respective CBAs, or if the court is the proper forum to resolve the plaintiffs’ claims.
The litigation battle is underway, and I would expect things to start heating up very quickly.
Nothing too excited has occurred within the last few days, so I figured I would provide a quick update.
On January 26, 2012, the Easterling plaintiffs and the NFL agreed to extend the due date for the plaintiffs to respond to the NFL’s motion to dismiss. This is generally the usual course of business in litigation, and parties are often willing to grant an extension of time. But of course, there is always an exception to this play-nice rule, and we may see some vigorous objections later down the road. But for now, the parties seem to be playing fair.
There are a few other reasons why the parties likely agreed to the extension. First, the parties are waiting for the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) to decide if the cases will be transferred and consolidated to Judge Brody in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This ruling–presumably granting the NFL’s motion to consolidate–should be made within the next few weeks.
Secondly, assuming the lawsuits are transferred to an MDL, Jude Brody will have to set new dates for the parties to exchange motions and engage in discovery. This is commonly known as a “Case Management Order.”
In other words, once the lawsuits are consolidated to an MDL all prior deadlines are void, and Judge Brody will preside over all pretrial proceedings.
This afternoon I received the following email from Hausfeld LLP, the law firm representing the Jacobs and Boyd plaintiffs.
On Thursday, January 26, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation convened in Miami and heard arguments relating to the consolidation of NFL concussions cases around the country. Both the NFL and the majority of plaintiffs requested that all concussion-related litigation be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, under Judge Anita Brody. Currently, Hausfeld LLP has a case in Judge Brody’s court, representing 106 plaintiffs alleging negligence and personal injury claims, as well as a medical monitoring claim filed in the Southern District of New York.
Lawyers from around the country supported the NFL’s motion to transfer. Hausfeld LLP filed a brief in support of consolidation in Judge Brody’s court. Only two firms dissented, requesting consolidation in the District of New Jersey or the North District of Georgia. However, even the dissenting firms expressed no objection to consolidation in Philadelphia, praising Judge Brody’s record as a jurist and ability to handle the litigation.Riddell, a defendant in three of the pending cases, opposed the plaintiffs’ and NFL’s request for consolidation. Instead, Riddell’s lawyer argued that the helmet manufacturer should not be caught in the crossfire of plaintiffs’ dispute with the NFL, and Riddell requested that the three cases pending against them in California remain there as separate actions. When questioned further, Riddell’s lawyer acknowledged that this would lead to a separate line of cases in California and Pennsylvania. The panel noted that such a decision would defeat the purpose of consolidation, which is to prevent disparate rulings around the country.The panel did not immediately rule on the issue. A ruling is expected in the coming weeks. In the meantime, Hausfeld LLP is coordinating with other plaintiffs’ counsel and working diligently towards preparing the case.
Updated 1-26-12 at 1:00 pm
Get ready, your head is about to start spinning trying to keep up with all of these lawsuits.
Four more lawsuits were filed against the NFL: Joel Steed v. NFL; Rob Johnson, et al v. NFL; Steve Wallace, et al v. NFL; and Shawn Wooden & Ryan Fowler v. NFL. Steed was filed in the Central District of California, Johnson and Wallace were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Wooden class action was filed in the Southern District of Florida. These lawsuits will be consolidated with the other 17, bringing the total lawsuits to 21.
The Steed lawsuit was filed by Rose Klein & Marias, and names additional defendants, Riddell Helmets and John Does 1 through 10. It asserts nearly the same claims as the Wallace suit below, save the loss of consortium.
The Johnson lawsuit was filed by the Locks Law Firm, the same firm representing the Ron Solt et al plaintiffs. Instead of a class action, the Johnsonlawsuit is a mass tort suit.
The Wallace lawsuit is also a mass tort suit and includes plaintiffs throughout the nation, from Hawaii to Massachusetts. This lawsuit includes additional defendants Riddell Helmets (and its parent Corporation Easton-Bell Sports) and John Does 1 through 100. The lawsuit asserts twelve counts: negligence-monopolists (twice), negligence (against both NFL & Riddell), fraud, fraudulent concealment, strict liability (for design defect & manufacturing defect), conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn, and loss of consortium on behalf of the players’ wives.
By including Riddell Helmets as a defendant, this may thwart Riddells’ chance of not being included in the MDL: NFL Concussion Injury Litigation. Five of the 21 lawsuits name Riddell Helmets as a defendant.
The Wooden suit is a class action and seeks medical monitoring. The Wooden plaintiffs are represented by Podhurst Orseck, the same law firm representing the Jones plaintiffs. The putative class seeks to represent,
All retired NFL players who played prior to the 2010 NFL season and who, during their NFL careers, suffered a concussion and were returned to contact play within ten (10) days of having suffered the concussion, and who, as of the date of class certification, are neither (a) advancing an individual personal injury claim for money damages against the NFL, nor (b) a salaried employee of the NFL.
The Panel will hear oral arguments Thursday in Miami, Florida, to determine if an MDL is appropriate, and if all the lawsuits will be consolidated and transferred to Judge Anita Brody in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Easterling v. NFL (Aug. 17) E.D. Penn
Pear v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Barnes v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Maxwell v. NFL (Oct. 11) CA
Hardman v. NFL (Oct. 13; voluntarily dismissed)
Finn v. NFL (Dec. 5) NJ
Jacobs v. NFL (Dec. 20) NY-Manhattan
Levens v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Lewis v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Stewart v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Kuykendall v. NFL (Dec. 21) ATL
Jones v. NFL (Dec. 22) MIA
Rucker v. NFL (Dec. 27) NY
Boyd v. NFL (Jan. 9) E.D. Penn
Dronett v. NFL (Jan. 9) ATL
Austin v. NFL (Jan. 9) ATL
Ron Solt v. NFL (Jan.18) E.D. Penn
Joel Steed v. NFL (Jan. 19) CA
Andrew Glover v. NFL (Jan. 19) E.D. Penn
Rob Johnson v. NFL (Jan. 20) E.D. Penn
Steve Wallace v. NFL (Jan. 23) E.D. Penn
Shawn Wooden & Ryan Fowler v. NFL (Jan. 24) Miami
On January 19, 2012, the 17th lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Andrew Glover v. NFL and NFL Properties, Case No. 2:12-cv-00287-AB. Mr. Glover seeks to represent a Class of all retired or former NFL players who played in the NFL.
Mr. Glover played in the League from 1991 through 2000. His complaint alleges the same fraudulent conduct regarding concussions as the other 16 currently pending lawsuits, and asserts claims for medical monitoring, negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, declaratory relief, conspiracy, and loss of consortium on behalf of his wife.
Like the other recently filed lawsuits, this lawsuit will be considered a “related action” and will eventually be included with the MDL, In re: NFL Concussion Injury Litigation.
According to the complaint, Mr. Glover is represented by RodaNast P.C., Gustafson Gluek, PLLC, The Roberts Law Firm, and Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield.
On Thursday afternoon, the MDL Panel will hear oral arguments to determine whether all pending lawsuits will be transferred and consolidated to Jude Anita Brody in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.