Page 7 - 2nd Quarter 2021 NFL Newsletter - Class Members

Published Decisions by the Special Master

Functional Impairment and Validity Testing
e post all decisions the Special Masters
Wdesignate to be published on the The Claims Administrator denied the claim on two grounds: retained functional impairment that

Settlement Website (under “Documents” click “indicate[s] a higher level of functioning than would be generally consistent with the Settlement
“Special Master” below “Published Decisions”).
Click here to read the decisions published so criteria for Level 2 Neurocognitive Impairment,” and invalid neuropsychological testing. On

far. To preserve confidentiality, we remove all March 19, 2021, the Special Master found that the absence of an informant interview, coupled
personal identifying information before making with a documented history of depression and the Diagnosing Physician’s inadequate analysis
them available on the website. We encourage of the relationship between it and the

you to check the Settlement Website often and Player’s functional impairment left a gap that
read any new decisions because they serve as justified the denial. Regarding test validity, Who are the AAP? The Appeals
guidance for the consideration of the same or the neuropsychologist’s discussion of the Advisory Panel or AAP consists
similar issues and principles in later decisions. majority of the Slick criteria was conclusory of board-certified neurologists

Let us know if you have questions about any of and the Special Master deferred to the AAP’s whom the Court approved to make
recommendations to the Court
the posted rulings or how they might affect you. independent medical judgment that the Slick and the Special Masters, upon

criteria indicated that the Player’s testing their request, about the medical
Three recent Special Master rulings that affect Monetary Award Claims are now on the site: provided an invalid measure of his abilities. aspects of the Settlement and to

review claims for certain Qualifying
Functional Impairment Slick Criteria and CDR Scoring Diagnoses.

In this March 10, 2021 decision, the Special Master examined whether the claim was wrongly Who are the AAPC? The Appeals
denied in part because of evidence of the nature of the Player’s driving. For a Qualifying The Special Master issued this decision on Advisory Panel Consultants are
Diagnosis of Level 2 Neurocognitive Impairment, the Settlement Agreement requires evidence April 27, 2021, explaining that the AAP should board-certified neuropsychologists
of functional impairment generally consistent with a CDR 2 rating in Community Affairs, defer to a clinician’s Slick-criteria-based approved by the Court to give

meaning that a Class Member has “[n]o pretense of independent function outside [the] home.” analysis when it results from reasoning advice about neuropsychological
completely articulated and contemporaneous testing and cognitive impairment to
Nothing in the Agreement categorically states that a Level 2 Diagnosis is incompatible with reports unless the analysis is clearly
continuing to drive. But the fact and extent of this retained functional ability is one of several erroneous. A Slick analysis is not clearly the Court, Special Masters, Claims

factors that together help clinicians, including the AAP Members and Consultants, evaluate erroneous because a member of the AAP Administrator, and/or AAP doctors.
a Claim. It was the AAP Consultant’s independent view that the Player’s retained ability to

transport himself, his loved ones, and those he mentors on a daily basis was inconsistent with or the Claims Administrator disagrees with
a CDR Score of 2 in Community Affairs. The Player disagreed with the weight that the AAP the conclusion that the neuropsychologist made. The Special Master deferred to the first
Consultant gave to this factor. But that disagreement about weighting, argued at length, is AAP Consultant who reviewed the Slick analysis and found that it was cogent and addressed
not clear and convincing evidence that the AAP’s judgment (which the Claims Administrator each relevant factor. The Special Master also concluded that the Player’s CDR, along with

adopted) was wrong. The Special Master also stressed that Counsel must take reasonable his neuropsychological test results, indicate that he is eligible for benefits associated with a
steps to verify the accuracy of Claims made in their filings, especially when relying on qualifying diagnosis of Level 1.5 Neurocognitive Impairment instead of Level 2 Neurocognitive
Claimants whose memory may be fading. Impairment that the Diagnosing Physician found.

6 INSIGHTS Class Members Edition Second Quarter 2021 Second Quarter 2021 INSIGHTS Class Members Edition 7