A federal judge from the Middle District of Tennessee has dismissed the argument of a former player, who sought intervention from the court, after an arbitration ruling, on whether Tennessee Football, Inc., i.e. the Tennessee Titans, “committed the torts of outrageous conduct and negligent and/or intentional infliction of physical and emotional injury, and performed its contractual obligations to (him) in bad faith by withholding certain medical information regarding (his) knee.”
The court, which in 2010 had referred the same argument to the arbitration process as spelled out by the Collective Bargaining Agreement(CBA) between the National Football League and its players, found in the latest instance that the arbitrator acted appropriately when it found that the plaintiff “raised the issue of violation of Article XLIV of the CBA for the first time in his post-hearing brief,” meaning “that issue was beyond the scope of the grievance.”
In the events leading up to the lawsuit, plaintiff David L. Givens alleged that he signed a five-year contract with the defendant on ora bout March 14, 2006. The plaintiff further alleged that “at or about the time the contract was being negotiated,” he underwent a complete physical examination to determine his fitness to engage in professional football and to determine his capacity to fulfill the terms of the proposed contract.
The physical examination, according to the plaintiff, was performed by an orthopedic surgeon, who was acting as an independent contractor and who did not undertake to treat or advise the plaintiff, but rather to report his findings to Tennessee Football, Inc. Givens further alleged that team officials were notified by the physician on March 13, 2006 that he had”a large defect on the medial femoral condyle” of his left knee and”may need surgery at some point.”
The plaintiff alleged that no one from the Titans notified him of the physician’s findings. “Consequently,” according to the complaint,“he continued to play football until he was injured in a game on November 12,2006. Plaintiff alleges that an x-ray of his knee revealed that the‘previously-known lesion and defect in his knee had crumbled.’”
His career over, the plaintiff alleged that he “learned of the results of the earlier physical examination when the defendant provided his medical records to him in February of 2009 during an arbitration to recover future payments from the defendant, pursuant to (the CBA).”
Givens alleged that Tennessee Football, Inc. committed the torts of outrageous conduct and negligent and/or intentional infliction of physical and emotional injury, and performed its contractual obligations in bad faith, by withholding certain medical information regarding his knee.
After Tennessee Football, Inc. moved for summary judgment, the court considered whether a CBA can preempt the plaintiff’s state law claims. It found that “all the plaintiff’s claims are preempted under Section 301 because they are not sufficiently independent of the terms of the CBA. The Supreme Court has held that because preempted claims must first be presented through the arbitration procedure established in a collective bargaining agreement, those claims should be dismissed.” Sports Litigation Alert,Volume 7, Issue 7, April 23, 2010
In the most recent action, the plaintiff alleged that he sought a ruling by the arbitrator “as to whether a violation of Article XLIV,Section of the CBA can be adjudicated in arbitration and whether or not there is an adequate remedy under the agreement.”
Because the arbitrator did not rule on this, the plaintiff argued that he “has not been able to resolve this matter through the arbitration process and is entitled to move to the next step, this litigation.”
The court dispatched that argument in the instant opinion:
“The plaintiff chose not to present the matters at issue herein and in his prior lawsuit to the arbitrator. The arbitrator did not find that these issues were beyond the scope of the CBA; rather, the arbitrator found that these issues were beyond the scope of plaintiff’s grievance. Thus,the arbitrator’s failure to provide the plaintiff with a ruling on these particular issues was caused by the plaintiff’s failure to raise them in his grievance. The plaintiff could have raised the notice issue and the corresponding state law tort claims and he did not. The remedy of arbitration was not unavailable to him, as the plaintiff claims. He did not take advantage of it. Therefore, the plaintiff’s argument that he was unable to obtain any relief under the CBA is not persuasive.
“As this Court found before, any duty the Defendant had to advise Plaintiff of the results of his medical examination was either created by the CBA or is inextricably intertwined with the CBA.”
David L. Givens v. Tennessee Football, INC.; M.D. Tenn.; NO.3-12-0672, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174497; 12/10/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Daniel D. Warlick, Nashville, TN. (for defendant) Mark W. Peters, Robert Earl Boston, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP (Nashville), Nashville, TN.
