WASHINGTON — Ten former National Hockey League players are claiming in a class-action lawsuit that the league hasn't done enough to protect players from concussions.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Washington, seeks damages to be determined at trial. The players also are seeking court-approved medical monitoring for their brain trauma and/or injuries, which they blame on their NHL careers.
The lawsuit comes just three months after the National Football League agreed to pay $765 million to settle lawsuits from thousands of former players who developed dementia or other concussion-related health problems.
The ex-hockey players claim that the NHL purposely concealed the risks of brain injuries faced by players, exposing them to unnecessary dangers.
The NHL didn't respond to requests for comment, but earlier this year, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said, ‘‘We have, on our own, a long history, going back to 1997, of taking concussions very seriously. ”
Blue Jackets make moves
The Blue Jackets placed center Brandon Dubinsky on injured reserve, activated defenseman Dalton Prout off injured reserve and added forward Sean Collins on emergency recall from Springfield in the AHL.
Dubinsky has five goals and 10 assists in 21 games with the Blue Jackets. He missed the past two games with a lower-body injury.
Prout had missed the past six games with a strained back.
Lightning star Steven Stamkos is walking without crutches or a boot two weeks after breaking his right leg.
He met with reporters Monday for the first time since the injury and said he fully expects to play again this season.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.