NFL Once Again Beats Back Former Players' Suit Claiming Painkiller Overuse
A federal judge in San Francisco said that former NFL players hadn't alleged that the league had a direct hand in drugs being doled out inappropriately to get players back on the field.
April 19, 2019 at 03:20 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The NFL has once again thwarted a lawsuit brought by former players who claim they were inappropriately administered painkillers during their playing days to keep them on the field.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California found that the former players couldn't support their claims that the league was negligent—the sole remaining claim in the case after nearly five years of litigation. Alsup found that the athletes hadn't alleged the NFL itself distributed prescription medications in violation of state and federal drug laws.
“Significantly, plaintiffs do not make any specific, plausible allegation that the relevant statutes apply to the NFL, let alone that the NFL violated those statutes,” wrote Alsup, in a 15-page order issued Thursday. “Despite ninety pages of allegations (largely directed to the clubs' conduct), nowhere in the third amended complaint do plaintiffs allege, as they previously pitched before our court of appeals, that the NFL undertook to provide direct medical care and treatment to players such that its conduct violated any relevant drug laws,” he wrote.
Lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, who represent Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee Richard Dent and nine other retired players in the case, didn't immediately respond to messages Friday. The plaintiffs originally sued the league in May 2014 seeking to represent a class of more than 1,000 former players with claims that painkillers were handed out by trainers without medical licenses and without proper prescriptions at alarming rates.
Alsup previously dismissed an earlier complaint in the case finding that the players' claims fell under the medical care outlined in their collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, were pre-empted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act. A Ninth Circuit panel last September, however, reversed Alsup, finding the players were “not merely alleging that the NFL failed to prevent medication abuse by the teams, but that the NFL itself illegally distributed controlled substances”—something not covered in the collective bargaining agreement.
In Thursday's decision, Alsup said that the players couldn't show the league had “proactive involvement with medication distribution” as they had assured the appellate court that revived the lawsuit. Instead, Alsup found that the players were trying to hinge their claims on the league's monitoring of its teams.
“Having convinced our court of appeals that they were alleging that the NFL itself directly provided medical care and supplied drugs to players, plaintiffs may not bob and weave back to old theories of negligence that, in essence, amount to the NFL's failure to intervene.” Alsup wrote.
Despite dismissing the case, Alsup made sure to note that his ruling shouldn't ”minimize the underlying societal issue and the need to protect the health and safety of our professional athletes.”
The NFL's defense team includes lawyers from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Skadden's Jack DiCanio on Friday referred a request for comment to a league representative, who did not immediately respond to an email message.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChicago Cubs' IP Claim to Continue Against Wrigley View Rooftop, Judge Rules
2 minute readSEC Puts Beat Down on Ex-Wrestling CEO Vince McMahon for Not Reporting Settlements
3 minute read$15K Family Vacation Turned 'Colossal Nightmare': Lawsuit Filed Against Vail Ski Resorts
Trending Stories
- 1Snapshot Judgement: The Case Against Illustrated Indictments
- 2Texas Supreme Court Grapples Over Fifth Circuit Question on State Usury Law
- 3Exploring the Opportunities and Risks for Generative AI and Corporate Databases: An Introduction
- 4Farella Elevates First Female Firmwide Managing Partners
- 5Family Court 2024 Roundup: Part I
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250