U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson has denied the class-action status sought by a potential class of several thousand current and former players suing the National Hockey League (NHL) alleging that the league was negligent in its care and prevention of head trauma and that it fraudulently concealed the long-term impact of head injuries while promoting violent play.
The decision is a significant victory for the NHL.
In a forty-six page order, Judge Nelson acknowledged the potential costs and duplication of effort in pursuing individual claims but focused on the ”widespread differences” in the various state laws regarding the subject and standard for medical monitoring.
She concluded that this issue would “present significant case management difficulties.”
Judge Nelson’s opinion stated that the class could contain up to 5,000 players, and depending on the history of and state of legal residence for each player, the judge said she would be forced to apply a wide range of legal standards based upon the distinct variances of applicable state laws.
Noting that a player who played for a New York franchise like the New York Rangers or New York Islanders would have to show proof of current injury to state a medical monitoring claim, while players who played for a Florida team, or those who have retired there, would not, Judge Nelson concluded, “Given those differences, the court finds that resolving these claims in a single class action would present significant case management difficulties.”
In another victory for the NHL,
Judge Nelson also rejected the players’ argument that New York law should be applied for the entire class because that is where the NHL is headquartered.
Rather than one state law applying, the judge found instead that the law of the state where a player spent most of his career — or for players who moved around often, the state where they currently live — should be applied.
The players had also proposed a class of living players who had been diagnosed with a degenerative neurological condition, such as Alzheimer’s. Similarly, the judge found that the legal issues for this proposed class were also too varied and individual.
Responding to the decision, Attorney Charles Zimmerman, an attorney for the players, asserted that the ruling was only procedural and that the individual players are prepared to move forward. Commenting on the future status of the cases, Zimmerman stated, “We will continue to litigate….on a case-by-case basis. Players with traumatic brain injuries …will prevail as we move forward.”