By Gary J. Chester, Senior Writer
It is a rallying cry for coaches and athletes who need to fill the void left by a star athlete who is injured and cannot play. “Next player up!” they will declare to one another and the world to show fans and opponents they do not plan to lose even without one of their stalwarts.
Recent concussion cases across the country suggest that “Next player up!” should be more than just an inspiration, but a rule imploring coaches to remove injured players from action rather than risk further harm.
One such case is Randall v. Michigan High School Athletic Association, 2020 Mich. App. LEXIS 7776 (Ct. of Appeals Nos. 346135 and 346476), where a hockey coach’s failure to remove an injured goaltender from competition resulted in competition of the legal sort.
The Facts
Samuel Randall played goalie for a youth hockey team run by St. Francis High School and the Bay Hockey Association in Michigan. In the second period of a game against Grand Rapids Christian Schools, Randall took an elbow to the head and allegedly lost consciousness for four minutes. The exact amount of time was disputed, but Randall told Anthony Polazzo, the trainer who examined him, “I think I’m good.” Polazzo later completed a medical form stating that Randall reported mild dizziness and headache, but no other symptoms of a concussion. (Note that Randall said in his deposition that he did not know how long he was laying on the ice.)
The trainer permitted Randall to stay in the game, but – as fate would have it – Randall subsequently took a knee to the head which forced him to leave the ice with a concussion. Randall filed a personal injury action against the participating schools, the Bay Hockey Association, and his coach (the “Association defendants”). He also named Polazzo and his employer, Metropolitan Health Corporation, and the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) as defendants. (He alleged the MHSAA negligently hired and supervised the game officials.)
The plaintiff asserted that the defendants were negligent in failing to remove him from the game after he demonstrated obvious signs of a concussion.
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Disposition
Polazzo and Metro Health moved for dismissal in lieu of filing an answer, arguing that Polazzo was certified as an athletic trainer and qualified as a licensed-health professional under the Michigan Public Health Code, thus triggering certain procedural requirements for filing medical malpractice actions. The plaintiff contended that the complaint set forth an action in ordinary negligence, noting that Polazzo “did not perform any medical tests to determine if Plaintiff had suffered a concussion,” and that he did not, therefore, exercise any medical judgment. The trial court denied the motion based on lack of discovery.
Prior to the end of discovery, the defendants moved for summary disposition. The Association defendants argued that Polazzo saw no signs of a concussion after the first collision and properly cleared Randall to play. They also stated that Polazzo was an independent medical professional and that the team’s coach justifiably relied on Polazzo’s evaluation of Randall.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Association defendants because the evidence did not establish that Randall was laying on the ice for four minutes and there were no other facts to establish that the coach or any of the Association defendants had reason to suspect Randall had sustained a concussion.
The court denied Polazzo and Metro Health’s motion, stating that the allegations against the trainer “do not require a higher level of medical expertise ‘beyond the realm of common knowledge and expertise.’” The court noted that the issue was not one of negligent medical treatment, but one of whether Polazzo was negligent in failing to provide medical treatment. As such, Randall did not have to meet the filing requirements of a medical malpractice action.
The Appeals
The trial court granted Randall, Polazzo and Metro Health leave to file interlocutory appeals. In issue was a concussion-protection statute, MCL 333.9156(3), which states in part:
A coach or other adult employed by, volunteering for, or otherwise acting on behalf of an organizing entity during an athletic event…shall immediately remove from physical participation…a youth athlete who is suspected of sustaining a concussion.
A youth athlete who has been removed…shall not return to physical activity until he or she has been evaluated by an appropriate health professional and receives written clearance from that health professional authorizing the youth athlete’s return to physical participation in the athletic activity.
The appeals court ruled that the concussion-protection statute does not create a statutory cause of action, but for common law negligence purposes the first sentence of the law imposes “a legal duty on the part of coaches and other covered adults to remove a youth athlete who is suspected of sustaining a concussion from further involvement in covered athletic activities.” This duty, the court stated, is one of ordinary negligence, while the duty of a health professional set forth in the second sentence of the statute imposes a medical-malpractice duty.
The court affirmed the trial judge, holding that Randall could properly sue Polazzo under the first sentence of the law even though Polazzo was a health professional, since he was acting on behalf of an organizing entity. The plaintiff was not limited to suing a health professional under the second sentence, which applies only to conduct after an athlete has been removed from participation. Thus, a jury could determine whether, based on what happened to Randall on the ice, Polazzo should have reasonably suspected that Randall suffered a concussion.
As to the Association defendants, the appellate court reversed the trial court and reinstated the plaintiff’s negligence claims. The court stated that further discovery could reveal additional facts as to how long the plaintiff was on the ice after the first hit. The court also held that the hockey team’s coach had an independent duty under the statute to remove Randall from participation if he suspected a concussion. The coach could not simply rely on Polazzo’s opinion.
The Takeaway
After many years of neglect, professional and college football organizations have taken dramatic steps to protect participants. It is a matter of greater awareness of the effects of concussions, protecting valuable assets, and avoiding litigation. The higher standard of concern and care has yet to trickle down to some scholastic and youth sports associations. This is unfortunate, as it is where a better standard of care is needed most.
If using the “Next player up!” slogan will persuade coaches and others to remove injured players more readily, so much the better. If the adults who supervised Randall have learned from this unfortunate case, it is that litigation can be lengthy and expensive and, if you make the poor decision of leaving a player with a head injury in a game, a subsequent injury can easily compound your mistake.
