Concussion lawsuits are typically high-profile, messy matters, where every ebb and flow of the litigation is splashed across the sports page.
Then you have the lawsuit filed by Todd Terrell on behalf of his son, H.T., against Catholic High School (CHS) in Baton Rouge and its very successful head football coach, Dale Weiner.
The litigation has not made the papers. But it should.
Terrell has alleged that after his son, H.T., suffered a concussion that Weiner rushed him back to football practice too soon, going so far as to “request” that CHS trainer Tyler Guillott “immediately release HT to begin football practice.” The plaintiff claimed that his son was cleared at “Weiner’s insistence and without performing any evaluation.” This, the plaintiff alleged, ran counter to La. R.S. 40:1299.182, the Louisiana Youth Concussion Act (Act).
On May 7, 2014, H.T. did return to football practice and shortly thereafter was allegedly ordered to perform “head roll drills down the length of the football field” as “punishment.” Midway through the drill, H.T. allegedly advised the coaches that “he was unable to complete the drill because of his prior concussion and that he was also dehydrated due to a lack of fluid provided during practice.” Nevertheless, he was allegedly ordered to continue to drill or he would be removed from the team. H.T. resumed the drill, but begin experiencing dizziness, nausea, and a partial loss of consciousness. The plaintiff claimed that “no evaluation or medical intervention of any kind” was offered to his son.
While driving himself home, H.T. began vomiting again and then passed out in his driveway. “He was then taken to the emergency room,” where he was diagnosed with dehydration and a concussion.
The next day, Terrell contacted the defendants to find out what happened to his son. He alleged that the defendants would not provide any information and that if “he contacted an attorney, H.T. would be removed from CHS.”
Terrell was able to procure information, specifically that an IMPACT evaluation from July 18, 2013 revealed that he had a cognitive efficiency index of 0.04, which the plaintiff claimed was “well below the healthy range of cognitive brain functioning and revealed brain injury secondary to his original 2012 concussion.” The plaintiff alleged that the score was never reviewed. If it had, it would have revealed “the likelihood on ensuing concussive injury.”
The plaintiff claimed that after the last concussion that H.T.’s “ability to concentrate has been permanently impaired.” His grades have “dramatically decreased.”
Pursuant to the Act, Terrell claimed that the defendants had a duty to “adequately educate themselves and their staffs, the student athlete, a parent, as well as immediately removing H.T. for play and informing H.T.’s parent of the avoidable injuries and that the defendants failed to comply with the provisions of the Act.”
Further, the plaintiff claimed the defendants committed a number of negligent acts. Among them:
“Deliberate and/or negligent failure to comply with the Act;
“Negligence in exposing the minor child to the inherently dangerous punishment activity and/or doing so without affording adequate supervision;
“Ordering and or allowing the minor child to drive himself home, while the minor child was exhibiting overt signs of injury; and
“Failing and/or refusing to provide adequate hydration to the minor child.”
The defendants filed an answer, asserting exceptions and affirmative defenses.
Regard the former, they made two arguments. First, they cited the “dilatory exception of lack of procedural capacity” under Louisiana state law. In short, they claimed that Terrell could not “represent H.T.’s interests” because H.T. is18. Second, pertaining only to Weiner, they argued that he is immune because he was “acting within the scope and course” of his duties.
Among their affirmative defenses was the argument that H.T. bore some responsibility for his injuries and that he assumed the risk by playing football.
