Court revives CTE Suit Against NCAA Filed by Family of Former SMU Player
DALLAS (AP) — A Texas appeals court has breathed new life into a negligence lawsuit against the NCAA filed by the family of Roger S. Braugh Sr.,a former Southern Methodist University (SMU) football player who died with Stage IV chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).
Appeals Court overturns Lower Court Ruling, Cites Factual Issues
The Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed a lower court’s decision that had dismissed the case based on statute of limitations. The appeals court determined that the NCAA failed to conclusively prove the family waited too long to file suit, sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Lawsuit Follows former Player’s Death, CTE Diagnosis
Braugh, who played quarterback and defensive back for SMU from 1960 to 1962, died in March 2019. An autopsy at Boston University revealed he suffered from severe CTE. His family later filed the lawsuit in June 2020, alleging the NCAA was negligent in protecting him from head injuries during his college career.
NCAA Argues Statute of Limitations Expired
The NCAA contended the family was aware of Braugh’s cognitive decline “decades ago,” and therefore missed the two-year deadline for filing a lawsuit. The institution pointed to specific instances between 1998 and 2017 as evidence the family knew or should have known about Braugh’s condition.
court Finds Disputed Facts Regarding When Family Knew Cause of Impairment
However, the appeals court panel disagreed, stating that knowing Braugh had symptoms of cognitive impairment was not the same as knowing those symptoms were likely caused by playing college football. The court found “fact issues” regarding the specific dates the NCAA cited,preventing a summary judgment in the NCAA’s favor.
Court Examined Key Events Cited by NCAA
The court reviewed five events the NCAA claimed triggered the statute of limitations:
- A 1998 conversation where Braugh and his brother discussed “old age” and football as potential causes of his cognitive issues.The court noted the ambiguity regarding the cause.
- A 2014 questionnaire where Braugh’s daughter mentioned her father had dementia and Parkinson’s disease. The court emphasized the lack of clarity linking this to football-related head trauma.
- A 2015 doctor’s note, which the court noted there was no evidence it was communicated to Braugh’s children.
The Fifth Court of Appeals determined that none of the events provided enough conclusive evidence to support the summary judgment win granted to the NCAA. The case will now return to the Dallas County Court for trial.
Texas Appeals Court Revives Lawsuit Against NCAA Over Football Player’s CTE
Ruling allows family of former player to continue pursuing claims related to chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
NCAA Faces Renewed Legal Challenge in CTE Case
DALLAS — A Texas appeals court has reversed a lower court’s decision, allowing a lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to proceed.The suit, filed by the family of a deceased football player, alleges the NCAA failed to protect him from head injuries that led to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).
Key Ruling: Statute of Limitations Not Yet Triggered
The central issue in the appeal was whether the statute of limitations had expired, barring the family’s claim. The appellate court determined that there was not enough evidence to definitively prove the family was aware of the potential link between the player’s football career and his CTE diagnosis early enough to trigger the statute of limitations.This ruling allows the family to present their case and seek potential damages from the NCAA.
Details of the Case
The lawsuit centers around claims that the player suffered repeated head trauma during his time playing college football, ultimately leading to the advancement of CTE. The family contends the NCAA did not adequately warn or protect players from the risks associated with concussions and subconcussive blows.
Court’s Reasoning
The three-judge panel of Justices Emily Miskel, Maricela Moore Breedlove and Cynthia Barbare, stated in its 25-page opinion that a doctor’s note suggesting a former football player *may* have progressive CTE is not the same as a doctor definitively stating the player *likely* has progressive CTE caused by playing football. The court also considered an email from the player’s daughter requesting information about CTE diagnosis and treatment. However, because the email didn’t mention football, the court held that it did not conclusively prove the family’s claims were time-barred.The ruling emphasized the need for conclusive evidence regarding when the family became aware of the potential connection between football and CTE.
Family Previously Opted Out of Class Action Settlement
in March 2017, the player’s daughter informed the NCAA in a letter that her father wished to exclude himself from the Arrington class action settlement, which established a medical monitoring fund for former NCAA athletes.
Texas supreme Court Hears Arguments in 2021 Winter Storm Lawsuits
Austin, Texas – The Texas Supreme Court has heard arguments in a legal battle stemming from the devastating 2021 winter storm that left millions without power. The court is weighing complex issues of liability and responsibility as power companies face lawsuits from individuals and businesses affected by the widespread outages.
Legal Experts Doubt Jury Trials for Many Victims
Legal experts are skeptical that the roughly 30,000 victims involved in these lawsuits will ever have their cases heard by a jury. The complexities of the cases and legal maneuvering have created significant hurdles for those seeking compensation.
15,000 Lawsuits Seek Accountability from Power Companies
Approximately 15,000 individuals and small businesses have filed lawsuits against power companies, seeking to hold them accountable for damages and losses incurred during the storm. the lawsuits allege negligence and failures in preparing for and responding to the extreme whether event.
Supreme Court Justices Question Lawyers Aggressively
During the hearing, the texas Supreme Court justices posed sharp questions to the lawyers representing both sides, signaling the high court’s active engagement in the critical details of the litigation. The justices’ aggressive questioning suggests a thorough examination of the legal arguments and potential precedent-setting implications of the case,probing into the responsibilities of Texas power companies.
Potential Impact on Future Emergency Preparedness
The outcome of these cases could have significant ramifications for how power companies in Texas prepare for and respond to future extreme weather events. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could incentivize companies to invest more heavily in weatherization and infrastructure improvements, while a ruling in favor of the power companies could limit their liability in similar situations.
What specific arguments did the appeals court use to overturn the lower court’s decision regarding the statute of limitations?
Court Revives CTE Lawsuit Against NCAA: Q&A
This article discusses a Texas appeals court’s decision to revive a lawsuit against the NCAA filed by the family of a former SMU football player, Roger S. Braugh Sr.,who died with CTE. The court overturned a lower court’s ruling, allowing the family to continue their legal claims.
Q&A
What is CTE and why is it relevant here?
CTE, or chronic traumatic encephalopathy, is a degenerative brain disease found in peopel with a history of repetitive brain trauma, often associated with contact sports like football. In this case,the former SMU player,Roger S. Braugh Sr., was diagnosed with Stage IV CTE after his death, making it the core of the lawsuit.
Why did the NCAA initially win the case?
The lower court dismissed the case based on the statute of limitations, arguing the family waited too long to file the lawsuit. The NCAA cited instances where the family was aware of Braugh’s cognitive decline, claiming they should have known the cause earlier.
what is the statute of limitations?
The statute of limitations sets a deadline for filing a lawsuit. In this case, the NCAA argued the family missed the two-year deadline. The appeals court, however, found the evidence presented by the NCAA insufficient to prove the family knew about the link between Braugh’s football career and his condition early enough to trigger the statute of limitations.
What evidence did the court examine, and why wasn’t it enough?
The court reviewed several events the NCAA claimed triggered the statute of limitations, including a 1998 conversation, a 2014 questionnaire, and a 2015 doctor’s note. The court found these events didn’t definitively link Braugh’s cognitive issues to football-related head trauma, thus not proving the family knew of the cause. The court emphasized the need for conclusive evidence of the family’s awareness of the connection between football and CTE.
What happens now?
The case will now return to the Dallas County Court for trial.This means the family will have the prospect to present their case and seek damages from the NCAA, alleging negligence in protecting Braugh from head injuries during his college career.
Did the family try to get help from the NCAA before filing the lawsuit?
Yes, in March 2017, Braugh’s daughter informed the NCAA in a letter that her father wished to exclude himself from the Arrington class action settlement, which established a medical monitoring fund for former NCAA athletes.
Are there other similar lawsuits against the NCAA?
Yes, the article mentions that the NCAA faces numerous lawsuits related to athlete head injuries, concussions, and degenerative brain diseases like CTE [[1](https://sportslitigationalert.com/facing-down-a-cte-lawsuit-ncaa-emerges-successful/)]
Engaging Trivia: CTE can only be definitively diagnosed after death through a brain autopsy.
this case highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding player safety in college football. Stay informed as the legal proceedings continue and the impact of these cases on athlete welfare becomes clearer.
