Category Archives: Other Sports
(Editor’s Note: What follows is an excerpt from an article in the recent issue of Concussion Litigation Reporter. To read the full article, please subscribe at http://concussionpolicyandthelaw.com/subscribe/)
In so ruling, the court determined that because the coach could not have foreseen the injury, the coach’s actions did not cross the necessary threshold, or exhibit “a degree of culpability that shock the conscience.”
Describing the factual scenario as “tragic,” the court noted that, in September 2014, the plaintiff was a member of a non-competitive cheerleading squad sponsored by a local high school. During that membership, the plaintiff was supervised and coached by the individual defendant and coach, who had been appointed as a cheerleading coach by the school board in March 2014. Prior to this appointment beginning in the fall of 2014, coach had never before served as a cheerleading coach.
While under the tutelage of the coach, the plaintiff suffered the three injuries to her head, which form the basis of this suit. On Sept. 10, 2014, she was injured twice during cheerleading practice. The first injury occurred when the plaintiff threw another cheerleader into the air and the other cheerleader’s feet struck her in her sternum. The impact caused her to fall to the ground and hit the back of her head on the mat. She suffered immediate symptoms of dizziness, fogginess, headache pain, and being tired.
To get the details and read the rest of the summary, please subscribe at the link above.
Here’s the table of contents of the July 2017 (Vol. 6, No. 1) issue of Concussion Litigation Reporter, which features timely reporting on developments and legal strategies at the intersection of sports and concussions.
- Fourth Circuit Affirms Lower Court Ruling, Finding NFL’s Post-Retirement Disability Apparatus Failed Ex-Player
- Court Dismisses Concussion Lawsuit Against Coach as Her Inexperience Works in Her Favor
- Boogaard Ruling Blurs NHL Liability in Head-Injury Suits
- Negligence or Assumption of Risk? The Case of Rugby Player George North
- A Boxing Tragedy: The Prichard Colon Case
- Bylaw Giving Teeth to Physicians and Athletic Trainers in Return-to-Play Decisions Set to Kick Off for Division II and III
- Head Impact Exposure Increases as Youth Football Players Get Older, Bigger
- Magistrate Recommends That Some of Omnibus Claim From Mother and Her Concussed Daughter Can Continue
- Looking in all the Wrong Places: The Tragic Death of Aaron Hernandez
(Editor’s Note: What follows is an excerpt from the recent issue of Concussion Litigation Reporter. To read the full article, please subscribe at http://concussionpolicyandthelaw.com/subscribe/)
By Gary Wolensky, Anne Marie Ellis, and Paul Alarcon, of Buchalter (www.buchalter.com)
On Sept. 27, 2014, 17-year-old Isaiah Langston, a Rolesville High School football player, suffered a concussion-producing collision with another teammate during a team practice.
According to a lawsuit recently filed by Langston’s family in North Carolina, Rolesville’s failure to properly respond to this concussion led to the teen’s death. In its complaint, the family alleges that while Rolesville’s coaches and staff checked Langston and sat him out for the remainder of practice, they never notified his parents of his injury and subsequently allowed Langston to return two days later to participate in pre-game drills and warm-ups without obtaining any medical clearance. The family alleges that Langston began complaining of head pain during these drills and then collapsed and died shortly thereafter.
In its lawsuit, Langston’s family alleges that Rolesville violated North Carolina’s “Return to Play” laws enacted to prevent concussion-related injuries arising when a youth sports participant returns to play after suffering a concussion. Return to Play laws have been enacted in some form by every state in the country in response to the changing landscape of concussion awareness in youth sports. Such laws are intended to increase awareness and care in addressing concussions. Specifically, Return to Play laws generally impose educational, training and notification requirements designed to ensure that coaches, parents, and youth athletes are better educated about the signs and risks of concussions.
The Return to Play laws enacted in California are among the most robust in the country. Specifically, California’s Education Code imposes an array of concussion and head-injury related obligations on any school districts, charter schools, and private schools that offer an athletic program. See, e.g., Cal. Educ. Code § 49475(a). If a coach or administrator suspects that an athlete sustained a concussion or head injury, the athlete must be removed from play for the remainder of the day as well as receive an evaluation from a licensed health care practitioner with expertise in concussion-related injuries. Id. at § 49475(a)(1). If no concussion is diagnosed, the athlete must receive a written medical clearance before returning to practice. Id. If a concussion is diagnosed, then the athlete must complete a graduated return-to-play protocol for seven days under the supervision of a health care practitioner. Id. Lastly, athletes and their parents must sign an annual concussion and head-injury information sheet. Id. at 49475(a)(2).
Additionally, California recently dramatically expanded the scope of its Return to Play laws. Specifically, California’s new statutory requirements …