ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania

Penn State payouts on Sandusky abuse claims now top $100M

| Friday, Nov. 10, 2017, 5:06 p.m.
Former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, right, is escorted by Centre County Sheriff Denny Nau, left, as he leaves the Centre County Courthouse after attending a post-sentence motion hearing in Bellefonte, Pa., Thursday, Jan. 10, 2013.
Former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, right, is escorted by Centre County Sheriff Denny Nau, left, as he leaves the Centre County Courthouse after attending a post-sentence motion hearing in Bellefonte, Pa., Thursday, Jan. 10, 2013.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Penn State has paid out an additional $16 million to people with claims they were sexually abused by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, raising the total amount of payouts to more than $100 million. The school previously said it settled with 33 people for $93 million. The new payouts bring the total to $109 million.

It's not clear how many people shared in the latest settlements, which were paid during the 2016-17 school year.

The university also disclosed Friday that it spent at least $4.9 million last year on related internal investigations and costs.

The latest payments mean the school's overall Sandusky-related costs now exceed a quarter-billion dollars.

Sandusky is serving a 30- to 60-year sentence for sexual abuse of boys, including attacks that occurred in campus facilities.

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.

click me