By Natalie Bird, Ph.D.
Most of the time when a golfer’s injury makes the news it’s because they were hit by an errant golf ball. This was not the case for Alexis Daniel, a former golf student-athlete at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Daniel, who sustained a traumatic brain injury after completing an unsupervised workout, is suing the university, the board of trustees, and multiple athletic department employees. The lawsuit was filed February 26, 2026.
Daniel alleges she and a teammate were required to complete a workout while the rest of the golf team competed at a tournament. The strength and conditioning coach said he would not be there but would provide a workout for them to do. When the players arrived, the facility doors were unlocked, the lights were off, and no additional strength and conditioning staff were to be found. The golfers completed the workout anyway, and Daniel claims she incurred a blow to the head that resulted in severe pain and neurological symptoms.
Daniel texted the athletic trainer asking if she should seek medical care but did not receive a response. She proceeded to drive herself to the emergency room despite having an undiagnosed TBI. The UTC golf coach called after finding out Daniel was going to the ER but did not follow up afterward. The athletic trainer responded over 30 hours after Daniel’s initial text and instructed her to “self manage” the injury using a “symptom checklist” that did not follow NCAA concussion protocol. She did so for weeks; she did not have an in-person evaluation from the UTC medical staff until 22 days after the injury.
UTC did not investigate after Daniel provided written documentation of the events that had taken place, and alleges the university violated Title IX by failing to respond to her injury the same as they would have a male student-athlete. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief requiring UTC to reform their sports medicine practices and Title IX compliance procedures.
As the facts are currently presented, many violate university and NCAA policies, especially concerning safety and supervision. The athletic trainer’s directions for self-treatment were likely an effort to limit the university’s responsibility. And if the workout was truly mandatory as alleged by Daniel, it would qualify as an NCAA Countable Athletically Related Activity (CARA), which requires supervision by a coach or strength and conditioning staff. These facts alone could significantly impact the outcome of the case, especially related to liability and NCAA compliance. However, arguably the biggest concern in this case is the athletes were placed in a lose-lose situation: not complete the workout and risk the repercussions, or complete the workout unsupervised and risk injury. Even the lawsuit itself describes it as a “Catch-22” situation.
It is unclear why Daniel did not travel with the team, but it can be assumed she failed to qualify for a spot to compete. From a player’s perspective, deciding whether to complete the workout would not be simple, especially if the goal is to be in the best position to qualify and travel for the next tournament. With playing opportunities and potentially a scholarship on the line, following a coach’s directions would be a top priority. That being said, there are many other unknown details. For example, were the players aware the NCAA required supervision? Did they know the university policies? Did they explain the situation to their coach beforehand? Were they acting recklessly while completing the workout? Without the answers to questions like these, it is difficult to compare this scenario to other cases or hypothesize an outcome. However, one thing is for sure: making the right decision in this situation would prove mentally and emotionally challenging for a student-athlete. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds and the implications it may have on future policy focused on student-athlete supervision and staff accountability.
