Dave Pear's Blog

After the Congressional hearing in June, 2007 which focused on health and disability issues of retired NFL Players, the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA jointly announced that one of the improvements to the disability system which they were adopting was the acceptance of a favorable Social Security disability decision as proof that the player was totally and permanently disabled. Shortly thereafter, the NFLPA published a White Paper indicating that this change meant that where SSA found a player disabled, they would not have to be examined by a Plan physician. Commissioner Goodell testified to that fact in the subsequent Senatorial hearing in September, 2007

I am presently representing a retired player who was found to be disabled by Social Security back in 2004 – which was within the 15-year period necessary for a player to establish the higher paying “football degenerative” category of benefits. The Plan has found this player entitled to the lower paying Inactive benefits, and I filed an appeal with the Retirement Board submitting the player’s Social Security file and explaining their decision. Essentially, the player’s past work was at the light exertion level (generally requires the ability to stand and walk at least six hours in an eight hour day) and they found that he was limited to sedentary work because of his orthopedic impairments (knees and back). Because he was over 50 years old and his past work did not provide any transferable skills to sedentary work, he is deemed disabled under their rules.

continue reading »

Earlier this year, Disability Attorney John Hogan filed appeals to the Retirement Board of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Players Retirement Plan on behalf of Dave. Late last week, Dave received a response and it was no surprise that he was once again denied his request to have his Inactive Total & Permanent Disability reclassified to Football Degenerative. It was a perfect example of how an application and appeal process shouldn’t work.

Let’s start first with a re-cap on the major issues: The Plan clearly breached its fiduciary duty in 1995 by not getting input from a vocational specialist (such as Earl Thompson). If they had, Dave’s case likely would have been granted. It’s a violation of the fiduciary duty of care NOT to adjudicate disability claims like others similarly situated would do. Every other disability system typically considers vocational factors. They should have obtained more detailed information from the doctor himself such as how frequent and how long the rest breaks needed to be, the need to lie down, and how many total hours per day.

continue reading »

Our good friend and player advocate, disability attorney John Hogan, was able to attend that Symposium held at the Baltimore School of Law on Thursday. Here are his notes from that day:

Notes from

continue reading »