The Facts About NFL Concussion Settlement FAQs
On December 1, a proposed document of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) was posted via Electronic Court Filing (ECF) to the NFL Concussion Settlement docket. The purpose of the FAQ document is to aid the neurologically impaired football players who are class members to the settlement in understanding its terms and filing their claims. During the enrollment period for the settlement, when retired NFL players had to make a choice between enrollment in the settlement, opting out, or ignoring it all together, in order to encourage enrollment Co-Lead Class Counsel Christopher Seeger, along with Claims Administrator Brown Greer portrayed the enrollment and claims processes as “simple.” They encouraged retirees to not hire independent counsel for this reason. They were told if they had a qualifying diagnosis their claims would be approved, and a 30-60 day window was referenced as an estimated approval time. As a result, approximately 20,000 retired players or their representatives registered for the program, including many who had previously objected or opted out. Read More about “The Facts About NFL Concussion Settlement FAQs”…
NFL Concussion Settlement Opt-Out Plaintiffs Take on Chiefs & Cardinals
In Part 1 of this series I detailed how §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act is the NFL’s number one go-to defense. This provision brings cases filed in various state courts against the league into federal jurisdiction when reliance on CBA interpretation is necessary. Often when the NFL successfully invokes this provision, especially in lawsuits involving retired players, there is no legal standing for the lawsuit under the CBA and the case is dismissed typically without extensive exploration the merits and allegations of illegal or unethical conduct. Read More about “NFL Concussion Settlement Opt-Out Plaintiffs Take on Chiefs & Cardinals”…
NFL Concussion Settlement Claims Report:
In keeping with Judge Anita Brody’s announcement following a closed hearing with Chris Seeger, NFL Counsel, and Special Masters, a claims report dated December 11, 2017 has been posted to the settlement website. The seven-page PDF document which details the current status of claims highlights numerous issues in the settlement, not the least of which is a mere 10% approval of submitted claims. Read More about “NFL Concussion Settlement Claims Report:”…
Harvard Law Professor Advises Concussion Settlement Court to Cap Attorney Fees
In September, Harvard Law Professor William B. Rubenstein was appointed by Judge Anita Brody to weigh in on controversies surrounding attorney fees, including a 5% hold back that Co-Lead Class Counsel Christopher Seeger requisitioned as payment for future work in settlement implementation.
In a well-reasoned 47-page report, Professor Rubenstein recommended against withholding the additional 5% from Class Members monetary awards and advised a 15% cap on contingency feels from independently retained counsel. Judge Brody has given a January 3 deadline for responses to the expert opinion.
Withholding 5% of every award is unreasonable
Prior to Professor Rubenstein’s report, every other attorney who publicly expressed an opinion on the subject, as well as members of the class of retired NFL players expressed opposition to the proposed 5% holdback. Professor Rubenstein agreed. As the professor noted, Seeger felt that the $112.5 million common benefit (of which Seeger claims over $70 million) should go to pay for securing of the settlement and the 5% for implementation of it, but as Rubenstein said, “Class Counsel bear the burden of proving the need for a 5% set-aside, but their artificial bifurcation of settlement and implementation – and hence the justification for the 5% set-aside – fails to meet that burden for at least six reasons.” Read More about “Harvard Law Professor Advises Concussion Settlement Court to Cap Attorney Fees”…
