Attorney Stephen Susman of Susman & Godfrey told Forbes journalist Daniel Fisher earlier this week that the fact that the former players suing the NFL are only seeking money for medical monitoring in one of two consolidated cases against the league is a tipoff that their case is weak.
“The remedy they are seeking speaks volumes,” Susman told Forbes.
Fisher, an attorney, went on to write that it is “a tactic trial lawyers frequently use when they can’t claim specific injuries to their clients.
“Medical-monitoring lawsuits have had mixed success in courts around the country but the strategy has generally been used only for plaintiffs who were unknowingly exposed to toxic substances that could lead to disease later. Lawyers have won medical-monitoring damages in cases involving asbestos, toxic chemicals and even explosive decompression of an airplane. However, the Supreme Court rejected medical monitoring for railroad workers exposed to asbestos in a 1997 decision, Metr0-North v. Buckley, saying it could result in “unlimited and unpredictable liability.”
For the entire story, visit http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/12/nfl-concussion-suit-likely-to-get-sacked-by-employment-law/