Judge Sides With NFL Class Counsel in Fee, Claims Administration Disputes
A federal judge has sided with class counsel in the NFL concussion litigation on several disputes, including how the former players' claims should be processed and whether attorney fee awards should be delayed until more payments are made to the claimants.
December 06, 2017 at 05:36 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge has sided with class counsel in the NFL concussion litigation on several disputes, including how the former players' claims should be processed and whether attorney fee awards should be delayed until more payments are made to the claimants.
U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued rulings Tuesday, settling several disputes that have arisen since the claims registration period ended over the summer. Along with denying requests for additional briefing on the lingering issue of how attorney fees should be divided up, Brody also rejected attempts by attorneys representing individual claimants to re-examine the claims administration process and to prioritize the compensation of former players before the fees are awarded.
In a separate ruling, the special masters involved in implementing the $1 billion settlement agreement, which is expected to compensate 20,000 former National Football League players suffering concussion-related injuries, disqualified a doctor who allegedly misrepresented information involving 153 claims from assessing any more. The ruling indicated the masters would continue to look into the matter, and could disqualify any firm found to have made more than one fraudulent submission.
Another ruling from special master and Penn Law provost Wendell Pritchett addressed how claims should be assessed involving former players removed from the active list during a game, finding that those games would accrue toward that claimant's eligible season.
In an emailed statement, co-lead class counsel Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss said he was pleased with that ruling.
“We are pleased for the retired NFL players who will be positively affected by this ruling, as it will ensure they receive proper credit for their time in the NFL,” he said. “We will continue fighting on their behalf so they receive these important and hard-earned benefits.”
Regarding awarding the attorney fees, Brody's order denied a motion filed by several attorneys that asked the court to “prioritize and separate vitally needed player compensation payments from any and all attorneys' fees awards” and to have a special master appointed to address the attorney fee requests.
The motion, filed in October by Steven Yerrid of The Yerrid Law Firm, along with Gibbs & Parnell, Jeff Murphy Law, and Holliday Karatinos Law Firm, said deferring attorney fee awards would encourage class counsel to facilitate timely awards to claimants. Some attorneys involved in the litigation have criticized the claims process for being too slow.
“The public perception is that class counsel are now asking for millions of dollars in compensation while brain-damaged players continue to deteriorate and even die while awaiting payment of their claims as the process is being 'slow played' and unnecessarily delayed,” Yerrid said in the filing on behalf of the firms, which make up a group called the Neurocognitive Football Lawyers.
More than $112 million is expected to be disbursed to attorneys representing the injured players, but lawyers have disputed how that money should be divided up, with Seeger asking for more than $70 million for the work his firm put into the litigation.
The dispute over the claims administration process that Brody also denied Tuesday stemmed from a motion filed by North Palm Beach, Florida, attorney Patrick Tighe, who is representing 85 former players.
According to Tighe, the claims administrators were not following the language of the settlement agreement by, among other things, mandating that players provide the raw data, rather than the medical findings, from previous neuropsychological tests, which, he said, can be very difficult to obtain.
“All we are asking them to do is abide by the settlement agreement, and to not add substantive language to it,” he said, adding that he is evaluating whether to appeal Brody's ruling. “They've turned this on its head. It's become, let's assume everybody's committing fraud, and then examine it as if there's fraud involved.”
Yerrid did not return a call seeking comment.
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 AllPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readEckert Seamans Snags Reed Smith Global Financial Intelligence Director
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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