Page 7 - 1st Quarter 2021 NFL Newsletter - Lawyers Edition

First Quarter 2021 First Quarter 2021

Published Court and Special Master Decisions Published Decisions by the Special Master

Three recent Special Master rulings that affect Monetary Award Claims are now on the site:
he Court and the Special Masters issue rulings in several areas that affect the entire
TSettlement Class. They may designate in a decision whether it is to be “published,” or Validity Testing
posted publicly. You can find such rulings on the Settlement Website (under “Documents”

click “Court” or “Special Master” below “Published Decisions”). They are organized by On January 15, 2021, the Special Master issued this decision,
topic and searchable by keyword. You can review the decisions for each topic (Monetary determining that the Retired NFL Football Player did not
Award Claims, Audit, or Derivative Claimants) offer evidence generally consistent with a Level 2 Diagnosis.
by clicking on the buttons at the top of the The Player’s test scores were not valid: the Player failed the
screen. The page displays for each decision: quantitative measures; the doctor’s Slick analysis was both
cursory and incorrect; and the AAPLC appropriately determined
1. A brief title (also a hyperlink to the PDF); that a more rigorous analysis would have qualitatively and

2. Its date; and additionally determined the Player’s testing to be unreliable.

3. A short description. Deviation from BAP Criteria

To read a particular ruling, click on its blue In this January 23, 2021 decision, the Special Master adopted
title link. We remove all personal identifying the AAP and AAPC’s individualized, factually-intensive, analysis
information before making them available in determining that the Retired NFL Football Player’s test battery
on the website to preserve confidentiality. was not generally consistent with the BAP criteria. Though it BAP
We encourage you to check the Settlement is true that some test variables overlap, the AAP’s analysis is

Website often and read any new decisions because they serve as guidance for the more individuated and focuses on the goals of the tests and
consideration of the same or similar issues and principles in later decisions. Let us know if their relationship to establishing a reliable and meaningful exam.
you have questions about any of the posted rulings or how they might affect you.
As the AAP concluded, “no reasonable substitutes” exist for
important parts of the Settlement’s evaluative exams, the doctor’s
Published Decision by the Court methods did not provide internal indicia of validity in the way
that the Settlement requires, and the doctor paid no attention to
Denial of Claims Based on Testing by Neuropsychiatric Institute qualitative evidence of validity through the Slick criteria.

fter a Special Investigation determined the Special Masters’ denial of their claims
Athat neuropsychological evaluations without prejudice. Based on a review of Validity Testing and Functional Impairment

conducted by the Neuropsychiatric Institute the Special Masters’ Ruling, the former This 2/16/21 Special Master opinion denies the appeals of eight
(“NPI”) “may be unreliable,” the Players’ objection, and the NFL Retired NFL Football Players’ claims that relied on evaluations
Special Masters concluded Parties’ opposition to the objection, performed by a neuropsychologist who the Claims Administrator APPEAL
that these findings had on December 12, 2020, the Court recommended be disqualified after Audit. The Special Masters
significant implications for the adopted the conclusions in the decided that the AAP must perform an independent review
integrity and fair administration Special Masters’ Ruling concerning of this neuropsychologist’s claims, because the records “may
of the Settlement Agreement the unreliability of NPI’s testing and involve a misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of material
as a whole and required a re- found that it was reasonable for the fact.” These eight claims largely relied on sparse assessments
evaluation of all claims filed based on NPI Special Masters to deny without prejudice all that failed to include necessary detail for the Qualifying

testing. Thirty-two former Players whose claims relying on NPI testing without allowing Diagnoses they asserted.
claims relied on NPI testing objected to individualized review.

6 INSIGHTS Lawyers Edition INSIGHTS Lawyers Edition 7