Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Portis was on the radio yesterday and discussed the lawsuit. He said he didnt know the specific claims/arguments of the suit but he did say the following:

1) he didnt know what a concussion was (dont really buy that personally)

2) he didnt know what the diagnosis of a concussion was (I buy that to a degree)

3) when he had a head hit/injury, he was told to shake the cobwebs off and go back out there (I buy this.)

I could def see the medical staff down playing concussions and turning a blind eye to diagnosing them. Especially before a few years ago.

Even last year after all the new rules on mandatory concussion testing, you still saw mike vick laying on the field, fletcher calling for medical staff, then medical staff not administering the mandatory concussion test and saying he had to get grass out of his helmet and sent him back out there.

joe - interesting case that might be similar to the nfl concussion suit. I am sure you have read it before. I dont know the name offhand (______ v. CSK et al) but it was out of baltimore where a railroad worker sued for damages for injuries and disabilities related to walking on train tracks over many years. I think the employer argued, in part, assumption of risk. COA found in favor of the employee.

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pitts, 203 Md. App. 343 (2013). I had not read it and did just a cursory review of the opinion. I didn't see any discussion on assumption of the risk - questions as to Fed preemption, notice and damage issues. Maybe I missed it.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pitts, 203 Md. App. 343 (2013). I had not read it and did just a cursory review of the opinion. I didn't see any discussion on assumption of the risk - questions as to Fed preemption, notice and damage issues. Maybe I missed it.

its not a 2013 case, its from the 70s or 80s .. havent read it in 5 plus years. not a big deal.

i think a 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim motion to dismiss may require an amended complaint bc the complaint doesnt appear to state any specific dates of injury/negligence to any particular/specific party. im dealing with one of those right now.

also, maybe the specific employees of the NFL, nfl teams may need to be named as parties for respondeat superior pleading purposes but i am not sure if fed rules allow for a lessening of the pleadings in class action cases. im guessing they do.

[MTK]

So basically this all boils down to did the NFL hold back info regarding head injuries from the players, correct?

Doesn't seem like too crazy of an idea to me.

[firstdown]

I'm not very smart but even I have known for some time concussions are not a good thing and taking blows to the head can cause concussions.

[JPPT1974]

Portis won't be the first nor will he be the play to sue. As 4,5K players are suing as he is one of them.

[CRedskinsRule]

I hope this link works. Interesting read: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,1866164.story

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I hope this link works. Interesting read: The truth about football - latimes.com

One of the comments from that article is pretty funny.

Extreme Sports (BMX, Motocross, Skateboarding), X-Games, Jackass/Ridiculousness MTV kind of stunts kids do today for the hopes of fame and popularity....

I think I rather have my son play football...

I have to admit, I agree with whoever this was that made the comment.

[That Guy]

it's like people thinking smoking wasn't bad for them. i dunno, i do think the NFL should be 100% upfront with anything it knows and the results of it's studies for the new guys coming in, but i'm still surprised current/recently retired players weren't 100% aware getting gang tackled 100 times a day wasn't good for your long term health.


i understand the older guys argument a bit more since some of them didn't make enough money to cover the associated medical problems, but for a guy that made 20+mill... come on.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

it's like people thinking smoking wasn't bad for them. i dunno, i do think the NFL should be 100% upfront with anything it knows and the results of it's studies for the new guys coming in, but i'm still surprised current/recently retired players weren't 100% aware getting gang tackled 100 times a day wasn't good for your long term health.


i understand the older guys argument a bit more since some of them didn't make enough money to cover the associated medical problems, but for a guy that made 20+mill... come on.

Like what kind of ****in' Asshole does NOT know that smoking was bad? Let's see, I cough all the time.....hockin' up loogies the size of Rhode Island.....I have no wind....
Oh well, probably not the "Luckies" right?
I realize Clinton acts like he attended the Earl Campbell academy of public speaking...but come on.