Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court’s Ruling Rejecting Bid for Retroactive NFL Total and Permanent Disability Benefits

By Robert J Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University, Senior Writer

Chidi Ahanotu, a former defensive lineman who played 12 professional seasons in the NFL, upon his retirement in 2025 sought disability benefits under the League’s Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle Player Retirement Plan.^[32] For those unfamiliar with the this Plan, it is an ERISA governed pension and welfare benefits package created through years of collective bargaining between the NFL Management Council and the NFL Players Association.

The Plan provides for two core disability benefits: Line‑of‑Duty and Total and Permanent. Line-of-Duty benefits are less generous and are designed for players who incur a “substantial disablement arising out of League football activities”.^[33] They are paid monthly, for no more than 90 months, in an amount determined by multiplying a player’s Credited Seasons by the dollar amount assigned to that Credited Season, but for no less than $1,000 per month.^[34]

The Plan’s Total and Permanent Disability benefits are more generous and as a result are much more difficult to qualify for after a player retires. They are only available to players who are “totally and permanently disabled” i.e., “substantially prevented from or substantially unable to engage in any occupation or employment for remuneration or profit.”^[35] To qualify, the player must have a disability that “results from League football activities, arises while the player is an active player, and causes the player to be totally and permanently disabled ‘shortly after’ the disability first arises.”^[36] The Plan specifies that “a player who becomes totally and permanently disabled more than 12 months after a disability first arises will be conclusively deemed not to have become totally and permanently disabled ‘shortly after’ the disability first arises.”^[37]

When a retired player applies for benefits, that triggers the Plan’s two-stage administrative-review process. First, the Plan’s Disability Initial Claims Committee decides all initial claims. Then, if a player’s claim is denied in whole or in part, he can, within “180 days from the receipt of an adverse benefit determination, file a written request for review of the initial decision to the Retirement Board”.^[38] The Plan also dictates that “no suit or legal action with respect to an adverse benefit determination may be commenced more than 42 months from the date of the final decision on the claim for benefits (including the decision on review).”^[39]

In February 2006, Ahanotu submitted a disability application with the NFL. After review, the Initial Claims Committee awarded him Line-of-Duty benefits, however, the Committee did not mention Total and Permanent benefits, nor did it state that Ahanotu had 180 days to request the Board’s review of any adverse benefit determination. Ahanotu did not request review of the Committee’s determination or otherwise follow up regarding the application.

Fifteen years later, in 2021, Ahanotu requested and received a copy of his 2006 application. Upon receipt, he alleged that “someone tampered with his disability application”, specifically, that “someone crossed out ‘both LOD and T&P’ and checked LOD only.” Ahanotu requested that the Plan make up for this purported malfeasance by paying him “Total and Permanent funds retroactively to 2005 when he applied for disability initially.”

The Plan responded that the 2006 decision was final and “not subject to further administrative review.” Not happy with this response, in 2023, approximately 17 years after the 2006 decision, Ahanotu filed suit in the Southern District of Florida under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B)), seeking to recover retroactive and future disability benefits on the theory that he had been wrongfully denied “Active Football” status.

Upon the Plan’s motion, the district court dismissed Ahanotu’s lawsuit after finding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Plan’s two-stage process. The district court also held that Ahanotu had not adequately established any proper grounds for excusing his failure to exhaust.^[40]

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit assumed without deciding whether Ahanotu’s administrative remedies had been exhausted and affirmed the district court’s dismissal on two alternative grounds: the Plan’s 42‑month contractual limitations period and because Ahanotu failed to state a plausible claim to relief.^[41]

First, the court held that the action was untimely “by a considerable margin.” The Plan explicitly required any suit over an adverse determination to be filed within 42 months of the final decision. Even crediting Ahanotu’s argument that the 2006 letter did not clearly deny Total and Permanent benefits, the Appeals Court held that an ERISA cause of action accrues, and the limitations period begins to run, “when the claimant has reason to know that the claim administrator has clearly repudiated the claim or amount sought.”^[42]

As for the fraudulent concealment theory, the court noted that Ahanotu identified only two factual points: that an unknown person had crossed out “both LOD and T&P” and checked only Line‑of‑Duty, and that some pages appeared to be missing from the file. Standing alone, these allegations did not allow a reasonable inference that the defendants had engaged in a deliberate scheme to deprive him of benefits, rather than innocent error or record incompleteness. The complaint also failed to explain his 15‑year delay in following up on the 2006 application despite filing other disability claims in the interim. For similar reasons, the court found no adequate basis for equitable estoppel or equitable tolling, emphasizing that such doctrines apply “sparingly” and require a showing of reasonable reliance on misleading conduct.​

The Ahanotu matter illustrates several important lessons for those seeking retirement benefits, especially in the sports context. Contractual limitations provisions in plans will be enforced where reasonable, and courts will measure accrual from clear repudiation, which may arise from non‑payment over time even in the absence of a formal denial letter. Participants who suspect underpayment or misclassification of benefits cannot delay for years in the hope of reviving old claims by recasting them as fraud or concealment.​ The decision also reinforces that complaints must do more than allege wrongdoing in general terms; they must plead facts showing both entitlement under the plan’s substantive criteria and a plausible causal connection between any alleged misconduct and the denial of benefits.

For retired NFL players, the Ahanotu case underscores the need to document disability onset relative to retirement, to promptly exhaust administrative remedies, and to file suit within plan‑specified limitations periods.

1. https://nflpa.com/active-players/benefits-and-services ↑

2. Retirement Plan at 32–33. ↑

3. Retirement Plan at 33. ↑

4. Retirement Plan at 28. ↑

5. Retirement Plan at 26. ↑

6. Retirement Plan at 27. ↑

7. Retirement Plan at 47. ↑

8. Retirement Plan at 50. ↑

9. USCA11 Case: 24-11442 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2025 Page: 7. ↑

10. USCA11 Case: 24-11442 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2025 Page: 8. ↑

11. See, Witt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 772 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2014), ↑