Plaintiffs Lawyer Wants Court to Stop Multiple Audits of NFL Players' Claims
Florida attorney Patrick Tighe, who represents around 90 former players, filed a motion for "court intervention" Sunday that asked the court to bar the claims administrator from performing more than one audit of a player's claim.
February 25, 2019 at 05:21 PM
4 minute read
An attorney representing multiple ex-NFL players seeking compensation from the concussion litigation class action settlement has asked a federal court to bar the claims administrator from repeatedly auditing players' claims.
Florida attorney Patrick Tighe, who represents around 90 former players, filed a motion for “court intervention” Sunday that asked the court to bar claims administrator BrownGreer from performing more than one audit of a player's claim.
According to Tighe's motion, the claims administrator put more than 30 of his cases into a second round of audits after the claims were initially audited and then found to not be fraudulent. Forcing the claims into multiple rounds of audits, Tighe contended, goes against the broader settlement agreement, and damages his client's due process rights.
“However, the application of the audit rules asserted by the claims administrator provides the claims administrator unbridled authority to stop the claims process and move the claims into a never-ending procedural black hole with no definite endpoint,” Tighe said in the 19-page filing. “The claims administrator's application of the audit rules allows the claims process to continue ad infinitum at the claims administrator's role discretion, which effectively eliminates movant's due process rights under the settlement agreement.”
Tighe has been a vocal critic of the claims administration process, and recently clashed with co-lead class counsel Christopher Seeger on a number of issues that have arisen in the litigation.
Most recently, Tighe raised objections about the standards certain doctors should be held to when determining whether a former player sustained an injury qualifying them to receive settlement funds. In response, Seeger entered a filing accusing Tighe of working with embattled political insider Roger Stone to spread “conspiracy theories and falsehoods about the settlement.” Part of Seeger's response noted that many of Tighe's claims were under audit.
According to the most recent report regarding how the claims are being processed, nearly 1,200 claims, or 55 percent of the claims submitted, have been audited as of mid-February.
Speaking Monday, Tighe said he has heard from other attorneys that their clients have likewise been subject to multiple audits, but he said he was unsure if other attorneys would be joining his motion.
According to the motion, 32 cases being handled by Tighe were initially placed under audit in the late summer and fall of 2017. The audits were completed and in March the claimants were told that there had not been any fraud. Most of the claims were later denied and were pending an appeal when they were put into a second audit in August.
In his motion Tighe said the claimants had not been told why their claims were audited, but he suggested the audits could stem from the doctor who evaluated all of the claims at issue. According to the motion, the claims administrator had questioned the doctor's competence, and, although the doctor was ultimately determined not to have committed any fraud, he was later terminated from the claims administration program. The motion said the class members were never given any notice about the doctor or the alleged concerns about his competency.
Along with requesting that the claims administrator be barred from performing multiple audits, Tighe also requested that the claims administrator be required to disclose the basis for the audits.
Seeger did not return a message seeking comment, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison attorney Brad Karp, who is representing the NFL, also 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 AllSpecial Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
2 minute readPa. Firms Set to Finish Year Strong, Thanks to Demand Uptick, Shorter Collections Cycle
4 minute readImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commentary: James Madicon, Meet Matt Gaetz
- 2The Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
- 3Leopard Solutions Launches AI Navigator, a Gen AI Search, Data Extraction Tool
- 4Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 5Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
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