NFL painkiller lawsuit gutted by judge’s dismissal of claims
In a flawed and dangerous decision, a federal judge on Tuesday dismissed most of the claims made by former players against the NFL in a lawsuit alleging that the league’s teams pushed them to abuse prescription painkillers.
U.S. district judge William Alsup has decimated the ability of the current NFL painkiller lawsuit to effect any actual change with his decision. This leaves the former players who were plaintiffs without much legal recourse and keeps current NFL players at risk of falling prey to the same tactics. Additionally, the reasons for Alsup’s dismissal of most of the claims leave much to be desired.
Only two claims against three NFL teams have been allowed to continue by Alsup. One of the claims is made by a player who built up such a tolerance to anti-inflammatory drugs during his career that the drugs were ineffective, and the player required heart surgery to treat a condition normally treatable by the use of anti-inflammatory medicine.
By limiting the liability to just three teams and dismissing most of the claims, the hopes that this lawsuit can substantially change potentially illegal practices that Congress has recently taken interest in and caused an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Agency are substantially reduced. Specifically, teams’ practice of frequently giving players prescription painkillers to keep them playing without informing the players of the side effects of the medicines is what’s at issue.
Justice for the other 17 players whose claims were dismissed, and perhaps thousands of others that might be added in a class-action certification, seems out of reach for now. Concerns of these practices continuing, especially now that the teams have essentially been given a “get out of jail free card” on the matter by Alsup, are realistic. What’s perhaps more harrowing, however, is the logic behind Alsup’s dismissals.
Next: 5 players who should have been on Madden 18 cover
In his decision, Alsup relied on two key points to throw out most of the claims. The first is statutes of limitations and the other is his own determination of what makes the claim legitimate from a medical perspective.
Alsup said that 11 claims were invalid because the alleged illegal activity took place more than three years in the past. The plaintiffs argued that the time line on those limitations should have began when they became aware that the practices they experienced as NFL players were at least unethical if not illegal. Alsup has decided that the clock started ticking when the alleged dirty deeds took place.
Alsup also contested whether the symptoms and other negative effects experienced by the players are legitimately caused by the abuse of painkillers. He rebuked the plaintiffs for failing to state that if they had known the side effects of the drugs and their frequent use, they would have taken different actions. Finally, he gave no room for the plaintiffs to amend their dismissed filings.
Alsup’s decision is short-sighted in its consideration of all the elements of the case. He refers to several of the claims as being based on muscoskeletal injuries sustained in the NFL and not continuous excessive use of painkillers, but fails to consider that those injuries were the very reason the players needed the painkillers. On the point of the players stating whether or not the players would have acted differently had they been informed of all the potential negative effects of the drugs, Alsup is most out of touch with reality.
Most NFL players have very little if any job security, as most are out of the league after two or three seasons for a myriad of reasons. That not only leaves them with a small window to profit off their football skills which they spent over a decade building, but also makes staying active of high prioritization. Most players get injured on the job in the NFL.
A player is then faced with a difficult choice: take prescription drugs given out like candy by NFL teams that mask the pain to stay on the field or risk losing his job by treating his injury properly. Most players put in that situation have chosen the former over the latter, and have paid the price with addiction to painkillers among a litany of other side effects.
Alsup also states that the DEA investigation revealed that the NFL has taken steps to improve its standards for player education and team handling of prescription painkillers. That may boast well for current and future players, but it does nothing to alleviate the suffering of former players, who are/were plaintiffs in this case. The relevance of that fact to this case is laughable.
The players can appeal Alsup’s decision, and hopefully that’s exactly what they will do. There’s no guarantee the judge who gets the case at the next level will reinstate the claims, but the possibility of a decision that is not as flawed as Alsup’s creates reason for hope.