Players wrong on key factor in NFL concussion settlement???

Jul 14, 2014

 NFL Consussions


click here: Players wrong on key factor in NFL concussion settlement

David Steele
The attorneys representing the players in the NFL concussion lawsuit are now at work getting the word out to all the retired players affected by the revised settlement.
Posted by | Categories: News |

5 Responses so far | Have Your Say!

  1. Dave Pear
    July 14th, 2014 at 3:25 pm #

    Attorney’s Sol Weiss and Seeger sound like bag men for Roger Goodell and the NFL!

    There are NO details of the proposed concussion settlement. Looking at the track record of the NFL, THE DEVIL IS IN THESE DETAILS!!!

    You CAN NOT believe or trust the NFL. They are TOOOOOOOO GREEDY!

    Before retired players agree on anything we NEED to see ALL the details.

    We need discovery. What did the NFL know and when did they know it?

    No more Dr. NO – Ira Casson or Pellman because by their actions these fake quack doctors have proven to be bag men for the NFL.

    BEWARE retired players,

    Dave Pear
    Pro Bowl 1978
    Super Bowl XV

  2. Dr. Harry March
    July 14th, 2014 at 7:48 pm #

    Seeger and Weiss don’t care. They are saying whatever is necessary to get their $112MM + 5%.

    A handful of very embarrassing cases will be paid out, then it is back to business as usual.

    It will always be the players fault and brought about by his own conduct.

    Judge Brody got the NFLs view from Karp and Pash and the NFLs view from Seeger and Weiss. Time for some new lawyers to fix this settlement.

  3. Don Brady, PhD, PsyD, NCSP, Licensed Psychologist
    July 14th, 2014 at 7:50 pm #

    NFL Settlements:

    N = Numbskull

    F = Foolish

    L = Litigation

    S = Seems

    e = every

    t = time

    t = the

    l = lawyers

    e = exclaim

    m = money

    e = enrichment

    n = nefarious

    t = trickery

    s = sizzles

    Some concerns:

    1- In exchange for uncapped awards in concussion case,

    #NFL gets unlimited appeals to awarded claims.

    …yikes !!!…Unlimited Appeals…thus a means for more delay and delay by the NFL…and possible scenarios like the reported California Workers Comp Board situation/fiasco when former NFL players apply for workers comp.

    2- Assessment issues:

    mmm…potential conflicts of interest (COIs) again… no surprise here…

    a) Who selects the “approved neuropsychyologists” … ?

    b) Who determines appropriate neuropsych and baseline testing instruments ?

    c) Who determines the definition for cognitive impairment, emotional impairment and so on ?

    d) Who determines the review committee members ?

    e) As any part or parts of the brain may be damaged by a concussion…the concussion assessment should globally evaluate any possible brain injury problems.

    It is also important to note the danger of false negative findings…where the absence of evidence does not reflect the evidence of absence.

    Furthermore, instrumentation / assessment tools used may not be sensitive enough to detect existing brain injury.

    3- Who reviews the submitted assessments for the purpose of making a financial determination ?

    Sounds like deja vous all over again…

    …and fertile ground for a repeat fiasco of many outcomes of NFL Players Workers Comp cases reviewed in California

    4- no discovery… t’is a sham

    5- Seems like from what info is available in press:

    …a major victory for the NFL and

    an illusion of significant monetary awards…


    Nothing changes if nothing changes applies here…

    …as the illusion of a fair settlement emerges…again

  4. Don Brady, PhD, PsyD, NCSP, Licensed Psychologist
    July 14th, 2014 at 8:02 pm #


    I. A thorough concussion / brain injury assessment must incorporate a multi-disciplinary approach…and not base findings solely on an “approved neuropsychologist”. This rationale follows:

    Three areas of the brain may become damaged via a concussion:

    1- cognitive

    2- emotional, and

    3- physical…senses, vision, hearing, smell, touch, taste, hand-eye coordination, speech & language, fine and gross motor skills

    A neuropsychologist cannot adequately nor thoroughly assess all these above areas of possible brain injury / damage.

    Thus it logically follows that EACH of these 3 areas must be thoroughly assessed by qualified and knowledgeable professionals from various and diverse professional disciplines such as, but not limited to, eye doctors (optometrist and ophthalmologist), neurologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists & physical therapists.

    These qualified professionals from various disciplines have a responsibility to make sure that appropriate tests for assessment are selected to ensure a valid and reliable assessment occurs.

    It should also be noted that failure to uncover a deficit during the assessment process does not prove that no deficit exists, as the testing instruments utilized may not be sensitive enough to adequately measure brain dysfunction/ impairment.

    II. My PhD in the area of Clinical Psychology was completed during 2004. The below 4 quotes (i.e.; A, B, C, & D) are pertinent citations to this discussions and are from my 2004 Dissertation entitled:

    A Preliminary Investigation of Active and Retired NFL Players’ Knowledge of Concussions (2004)

    ( I again thank all the NFL players who assisted with my dissertation research. This research was initiated during 1997 — well prior to concussions being discussed in mainstream media.)

    A) “In an extensive review of research pertaining to mild brain injury, Reitan & Wolfson (2000) strongly cautioned that:

    many researchers who have examined mild brain injury have typically not employed comprehensive neuropsychological test batteries in their methodology.

    The authors perceive this narrow approach as a major flaw in evaluating the impact of mild brain injury, because they firmly believe that standard neuropsychological test batteries have frequently been shown to be sensitive to both focal and diffuse brain damage.

    They also pointed out that researchers typically have limited their assessment and focus due to a premature presumption that neuropsychological impairment is limited to a rather narrow range of deficits, and that a restricted range of tests is all that is required for adequate neuropsychological assessment.

    Our clinical experience suggests that mild brain injury produces diversified and even widespread neuropsychological losses in some patients (p.97).”

    B) “The medical evaluation component of a brain injury assessment is also highly suspect since typical medical assessment methods (i.e., neurology exam, EEG, brain-imaging techniques) utilized in determining adverse effects of mild brain injury are rather gross and insensitive, and thus false conclusions may be derived which report no neurological deficits were sustained (p.43).

    C) A similar perspective pertaining to false conclusions was shared by McClelland (1996) when he cautioned, “…the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” (p. 566). This view was reiterated by Gronwall (1991), who stated, “…it is impossible to prove the null hypothesis.

    Failure to show a deficit does not prove that no deficit exists, and the neuropsychologist has a responsibility to make sure that appropriate tests for assessment are selected” (p. 257).

    D) Damasio (1994), during a case presentation in which he discussed a particular patient, also noted problems with tests not being sensitive enough to adequately measure brain dysfunction/ impairment; he declared that:

    “a problem here lies with the test, not with the patients.

    The tests simply do not address properly the particular functions compromised and thus fail to measure any neurocognitive decline” (p. 41).

    In the same vein, through the devising of more sensitive and precise tests designed to further scrutinize concussions and the postconcussion syndrome, it is highly probable that an organic basis will be uncovered (Robertson, 1988).

    As I read and reflect upon perspectives shared…. I believe sincere individuals would benefit from becoming familiar with the contents of my 2004 Dissertation…which includes a snapshot of the evolution of concussion/brain injury knowledge that has existed in the professional literature for a significant period of time…that is, multiple centuries.

    III. Also suggest readers of this blog view a 1/2 hour Sport-Related Concussion interview of me by well known Albany, NY area broadcast personality, Joe Condon, that was recently placed on youtube.

    The 1/2 hour ION TV The Subject Matters interview was placed on youtube in two 14 minute segments.

    Google: Don Brady PhD, PsyD, The Subject Matters, youtube, sport related concussions for each segment.

  5. John Hogan
    July 20th, 2014 at 5:03 am #

    As i read Dr. Brady’s always insightful comments, it makes me wonder – was there any input from medical professionals – like him – in the settlement negotiations? Perhaps not. Just like when the NFL and the NFLPA negotiated the last CBA and apparently did not have the input from any disability experts when they amended the terms of the disability plan.