In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Student Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
314 F.R.D. 580 (2016)
Current and former student-athletes (athletes) (plaintiffs) sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (defendant) for relief related to the NCAA’s handling of athletes’ concussions and return-to-play policies over the course of many years. A class action and numerous other suits were filed by the athletes and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. Following extensive negotiations, the athletes and the NCAA reached a settlement agreement (settlement). The settlement defined the settlement class as all athletes who played NCAA-sanctioned sports at NCAA-member institutions prior to the date upon which the settlement was approved by the court. The settlement also included a request, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d), for notice to all class members and an opportunity to opt of out of the class. The settlement promised future corrective measures to concussion-related protocol and created a $70 million Medical Monitoring Fund and Medical Monitoring Program (MMP) that would provide ongoing screening and evaluation of concussion-related symptoms and mid- to late-life onset diseases that cause cognitive, mood, and motor problems to the athletes for a period of 50 years, starting within 90 days of approval. In exchange, the athletes bound by the settlement agreed to waive all concussion-related personal-injury claims brought on a class-wide basis, but their right to bring individual personal-injury claims was preserved. Many of the athletes and the NCAA submitted the agreement to the court for approval, but two athletes objected to the agreement to the extent that it required the athletes to release personal-injury claims brought on a class-wide basis. The settling athletes and NCAA moved to certify the settlement class and approve the agreement.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lee, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 707,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.