Schmitz v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

122 N.E.3d 80 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P played football for Notre Dame. During his college football career, he sustained 'repetitive sub-concussive and concussive brain impacts.' On 'many occasions,' he 'experienced concussion symptoms, including but not limited to being substantially disoriented as to time and place.' Yet, neither P nor Notre Dame's coaching staff recognized that P suffered from any injury that required monitoring, treatment, therapy, or rest. Notre Dame's coaching staff championed tackling and blocking techniques that involved a player's use of his helmeted head and aggravated the risk of head injuries, and the coaching staff ordered players to continue participating in practices and games following a head impact. D was neither tested nor examined for concussive symptoms, nor was he advised or educated about concussions while playing football for Notre Dame. P alleged that his December 2012 diagnosis of CTE at the Cleveland Clinic was the first time a 'competent medical authority' informed him that he 'had suffered a brain injury related to playing football.' CTE is described as a 'latent disease' that 'involves the slow build-up of the Tau protein within the brain tissue that causes diminished brain function, progressive cognitive decline,' and other neurological symptoms. In October 2014, P and his wife filed this action against NCAA (Ds). They alleged claims of negligence, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, breach of express and implied contract, and loss of consortium. P alleges that Ds knew or should have known that college football players are at greater risk for chronic brain injury, both during their football careers and later in life, and that Ds 'ignored the medical risks,' acted so as o 'aggravate and enhance the medical risks,' 'failed to educate' players about the links between football head impacts and chronic neurological damage, and 'failed to implement or enforce any system that would reasonably have mitigated, prevented, or addressed concussive and sub-concussive impacts.' Ds moved to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time-barred. The motion was granted and Ps appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Ps' contract claims as time-barred and affirmed the dismissal of Ps' constructive-fraud claim against D for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As to the remaining claims, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal. It held that the amended complaint does not allege facts that would allow the court to conclude as a matter of law that Ps' remaining claims accrued prior to December 2012, when P was diagnosed with CTE. Ds appealed.