An Ohio state appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a professional football player’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation claim against the Cleveland Browns does not intrude upon the legal territory of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which would have required the player to pursue his claim first through arbitration.
The plaintiff in the case was LeCharles Bentley. In the spring of 2006, Bentley signed a six-year National Football League Player’s contract with the Cleveland Browns, and shortly thereafter, he tore his left knee patellar tendon. He had surgery the following day to repair the injury.
Three days later, he began a post-operative regimen of physical therapy, medical care, and treatment at the Cleveland Browns training facility in Berea, Ohio. On August 22, 2006, he was unable to walk; his knee swelled, and he experienced flu-like symptoms. The Cleveland Browns immediately advised Bentley to get his blood tested. Bentley was subsequently diagnosed with a staph infection, and he He had multiple surgeries designed to eradicate the infection.
On July 22, 2010, Bentley filed a complaint against the Cleveland Browns asserting causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. He specifically alleged that he contracted a staph infection at the Cleveland Browns’ training facility, while undergoing post-operative rehabilitation on his torn left knee patellar tendon. Bentley alleged that the Cleveland Browns owns, operates, and maintains the training facility, which was open to both NFL players and non-NFL members of the general public.
Bentley also alleged that the Cleveland Browns’ head athletic trainer, Marty Lauzon, represented that the facility was a “world class facility” with a strong track record for successfully rehabilitating other Cleveland Browns’ players, such as Braylon Edwards and Kellon Winslow. In addition, General Manager Phil Savage represented that the Cleveland Browns had “the best of everything.” Based on the above representations, Bentley said he chose to use the Cleveland Browns’ training facility.
Bentley claimed that he was exposed to unsanitary conditions, or rehabilitation devices and surfaces, as well as other equipment that had not been properly maintained, disinfected, or cleaned. He went on to sue the Browns.
On September 22, 2010, the Browns filed a motion to stay the case pending arbitration or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration. In addition, the team also moved to stay discovery pending determination of the proper forum for resolving the conflict with Bentley. Bentley opposed both motions. A month later, the trial court denied the Cleveland Browns’ motions to stay discovery and to compel arbitration. The Browns appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying its motion to compel arbitration.
“The issue is whether Bentley’s claims pertain to the CBA, thereby invoking the arbitration provision contained therein,” wrote the panel. “Regardless of which standard of appellate review this court applies, abuse of discretion or de novo, we find that the trial court did not err in denying the Cleveland Browns’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration.”
The court went on to elaborate
The Browns argued “that Bentley’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes of actions are subject to the mandatory and exclusive arbitration provisions of the CBA. However, this issue, involving the Cleveland Browns and concerning allegations identical to Bentley’s assertions, has recently been addressed in Jurevicius. Jurevicius.v. Cleveland Browns Football (Mar. 31, 2010), N.D. Ohio No. 1:09 CV 1803.
“On June 26, 2009, Joe Jurevicius, also a professional football player then under contract with the Cleveland Browns for the 2006 through 2009 seasons, filed suit against the Cleveland Browns asserting eight causes of actions, including fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Jurevicius, like Bentley, alleged that he contracted a staph infection at the Cleveland Browns training facility, while he was undergoing post-operative rehabilitation.
“Similarly, Jurevicius alleged that the Cleveland Browns’ head athletic trainer, then general manager, and then head coach made false representations regarding efforts to prevent staph infections at the facility. Jurevicius alleged that the Cleveland Browns concealed information about the lack of precautions taken at the training facility to prevent staph infections. Jurevicius, as does Bentley, alleged that he relied on the Cleveland Browns’ representations to his detriment.”
The Browns had cited Jeffers v. D’Allessandro, 199 N.C. App. 86, 681 S.E.2d 405 (2009), and Sherwin v. Indianapolis Colts, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 1172, 1178 (N.D.N.Y.1990), to bolster its position that that Bentley’s claims of negligent misrepresentation are “substantially dependent upon an analysis of the CBA and therefore subject to arbitration.”
However, the court found both Jeffers and Sherwin “distinguishable from the present case.
“In Jeffers, a former professional football player brought an action against a physician and clinic for medical malpractice and against a football team for negligent retention, intentional misconduct, and breach of implied warranty, alleging that the physician performed additional, unauthorized procedures during knee surgery that went beyond his informed consent.
“Similarly, in Sherwin, a former professional football player brought suit alleging that the team and team doctors failed to provide adequate medical care, and intentionally withheld information regarding the true nature of his injury.
“In both cases, the teams filed motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay pending arbitration under the CBA between the league and players’ union. In both Jeffers and Sherwin, the courts generally concluded that the teams’ duty to retain a team physician and the duty of the players to have a physician-patient relationship with that physician arose out of the CBA and the required analysis of the CBA in order to be resolved.
“In the instant case, Bentley’s claims involve the staph infection he contracted during post-surgery rehabilitation in a facility that the Cleveland Browns represented as a world-class facility and where other Cleveland Browns football players, specifically Braylon Edwards and Kellon Winslow, had undergone successful post-surgical rehabilitation. It is undisputed that nothing in the CBA required Bentley to utilize the Cleveland Browns facility, a fact appellant’s counsel conceded at oral argument. It is also undisputed that after Bentley underwent knee surgery, he could have chosen any facility in the country for his rehabilitation and would not have contravened the CBA.
“Given that Bentley’s post-surgical rehabilitation would not have contravened the CBA if he had chosen to go elsewhere, it would be unnecessary to analyze the CBA to resolve the claims that arose from his contracting the staph infection at the Cleveland Browns facility. As such, the trial court properly denied the Cleveland Browns’ motion to compel -arbitration. Accordingly, we overrule the sole assigned error.”
LeCharles Bentley v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., LLC, et al., Ct. App., 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga County; No. 95921, 2011 Ohio 3390; 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 2869; 7/7/2011
Attorneys of Record: (for appellants) Frederick R. Nance, J. Philip Calabrese, Chaundra C. Monday, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (US) LLP, Cleveland, Ohio. (for appellee) Shannon J. Polk, Andrew A. Kabat, Daniel M. Connell, Haber Polk Kabat, LLP, Cleveland, Ohio; Patrick J. Krebs, Philip R. Bautista, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Cleveland, Ohio.
