A former football player for the University of California, Berkeley has sued the school and several of its employees, including former football coach Jeff Tedford, for negligence in connection with the concussions sub-concussive hits he suffered during games and practices as a Golden Bear.
Bernard Hicks, who played 34 games for UC Berkeley from 2004 to 2008, alleged in his complaint that he not only “sustained multiple concussions as a result of hits to his head,” but also “sustained multiple sub-concussive injuries to his head.” This, the safety claimed, left him with “permanent and debilitating neurological injuries.”
Hicks, who is represented by Steven R. Vartazarian and Matthew J. Whibley of the Vartazarian Law Firm, invoked Government Code Section 815.2 (a) in his complaint, which provides “a public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omissions of an employee of the public entity within the scope of this employment, if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.” Further, Hicks pointed to state law (Section 820), which provides that “a public employee is liable for injury caused by his act or omissions to the same extent as a private person.”
The “public employees” the plaintiff alluded to included:
Tedford, who Coached at UC Berkeley from 2002 to 2012;
Cindy Chang, M.D. and team physician; and
Ryan Cobb, head athletic trainer.
The individual defendants, through their “negligence,” caused injuries to the plaintiff “while they were acting within the scope of their employment,” according to the complaint.
Hicks implicated Tedford because he “provided guidance and coached plaintiff on football techniques and strategies.
“Tedford and other employees … controlled the manner in which plaintiff played, practiced and trained, including the amount of minutes plaintiff played, the amount of games the plaintiff played, the amount of full-contact practices plaintiff participated in, the type of drills plaintiff participated in, the resting time between drills, practices and games which plaintiff played in.
“Tedford and employees … required the plaintiff use a specific brand and model of helmet.”
Hicks maintained that Tedford and other employees “knew or should have known about CTE, mild traumatic brain injury, traumatic brain injury, post-concussion syndrome and other neurological diseases associated with concussions and sub-concussive injuries.”
Further, he claimed that UC Berkeley, through its employees, “failed to take reasonable measures to prevent head injuries, such as reducing contact practices, resting plaintiff between hits, studying the amount of impacts to plaintiff’s head (and) tailoring practices to reduce head impacts.”
As for Dr. Chang and Cobb, the plaintiff alleged that they failed to “inform and/or educate” him about the risk of concussion. Hicks also recited some of the same allegations he made against Tedford. Then he made an allegation more specific to medical profession.
The plaintiff claimed that by giving him “medical clearance to return to play, and by failing to warn (him) about neurological diseases,” the conduct of Dr. Chang, Cobb and other employees “fell below the standard of care.”
Hicks continued:
“Had plaintiff been informed of the neurological disease associated with concussions and sub-concussive injuries to his head, or told he would not play due to his injuries, he would have refrained from playing and/or rested longer.”
UC Berkeley released a statement in response to the lawsuit, claiming that it bases its care on the “best and most up-to-date clinical guidelines.” Further, “the medical care we provide our student-athletes meets or exceeds the standards in collegiate and national sports medicine.”
