NFL 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
© 2024 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 AllLitigators of the (Past) Week: Tackling a $4.7 Billion Verdict Post-Trial for the NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Antitrust Litigation
Take-Two's Pete Welch on 'Getting the Best Results While Getting in the Way the Least'
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Beats Videogame Copyright Claim From Lebron James' Tattoo Artist
Trending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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