ShareThis Page

NCAA settles head-injury lawsuit

| Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 5:10 p.m.
Attorney Joseph Siprut (left), the lead plaintiffs' attorney who spearheaded talks with the NCAA, looks on while attorney Steve Berman speaks at a news conference Tuesday, July 29, 2014, in Chicago. The NCAA agreed Tuesday to settle a class-action head-injury lawsuit by creating a $70 million fund to diagnose thousands of current and former college athletes to determine if they suffered brain trauma playing football, hockey, soccer and other contact sports.

CHICAGO — The NCAA on Tuesday agreed to settle a class-action, head-injury lawsuit by creating a $70 million fund to diagnose thousands of current and former college athletes to determine whether they suffered brain trauma while playing football, hockey, soccer and other contact sports.

College sports' governing body also agreed to implement a single return-to-play policy spelling out how teams must treat players who received head blows, according to a filing in U.S. District Court in Chicago. Critics have accused the NCAA of giving too much discretion to schools about when athletes can go back into games.

Unlike a proposed settlement in a similar lawsuit against the NFL, this deal stops short of setting aside money to pay players who suffered brain trauma. Instead, athletes can sue individually for damages. The NCAA-funded tests to gauge the extent of neurological injuries could establish grounds for doing that.

The settlement applies to men and women who participated in basketball, football, ice hockey, soccer, wrestling, field hockey and lacrosse. Those who've played at any time during the past half-century or more at one of the more than 1,000 NCAA member schools qualify for the medical exams.

“I think it's a positive direction,” Dr. Freddie Fu, head physician of Pitt's athletic programs, said of the policies. “I hope the resources go toward taking care of the people, helping diagnose and treat people. I hope the money won't go to the lawyers. I think much can be learned.”

Fu is chairman of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at Pitt's medical school and UPMC, which has been at the forefront of the issue since its concussion program was founded in 2000. Fu said the settlement's proposals already are in place at Pitt.

“We're ahead of the game,” he said. “We're probably the most concussion-conscious program in the country.”

Penn State spokesman Jeff Nelson said in an email that no one could comment until “medical and training staff have an opportunity to review and discuss” the settlement.

He did add, however, that “this has been our policy for at least 15 years.”

Tuesday's filing serves as notice to the federal judge overseeing the case that the parties struck a deal after almost a year of negotiations.

“I wouldn't say these changes solve the safety problems, but they do reduce the risks,” said Joseph Siprut, the lead plaintiffs' attorney. “It's changed college sports forever.”

The NCAA, which admits no wrongdoing in the settlement, hailed the settlement.

“This agreement's proactive measures will ensure student-athletes have access to high-quality medical care by physicians with experience in the diagnosis, treatment and management of concussions,” said the NCAA's chief medical officer, Brian Hainline.

Siprut added that stricter rules and oversight should help ensure the viability of football by allaying fears of parents currently inclined to not let their kids play.

“Changes were necessary to preserve the talent well of kids that feeds the game of football,” he said. “Absent these kinds of changes, the sport will die.”

Among other settlement terms, all athletes will take baseline neurological tests to start each year to help doctors determine the severity of any concussion during the season; concussion education will be mandated for coaches and athletes; and a new, independent Medical Science Committee will oversee the medical testing.

Staff writers Bob Cohn and Chris Adamski contributed.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.