By Chris Fore
I was retained by a school district’s attorneys as an expert witness in a concussion lawsuit filed by a player and his parents against the school’s head football coach. My role was to review the evidence and determine whether the coaching staff met the applicable standard of care in managing player safety.
The school district and coaching staff ultimately prevailed in the case. My hope in sharing this experience is that district leaders, site administrators, and coaches can learn from it. The litigation cost the district tens of thousands of dollars, took approximately 10 years from the date of injury to the final court decision, and placed a significant emotional and professional burden on the coaching staff throughout the process.
In preparing my opinions, I reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint, deposition transcripts, district policies and procedures, and other relevant documents. My conclusions were straightforward: the head coach and his staff took player safety seriously, concussions were not a systemic issue on the 2012 football team, the student-athlete’s claims regarding a head injury during the game in question lacked credibility, and several opinions offered by the plaintiff’s experts were unsupported or overstated.
Player Safety Was a Priority
The head coach consistently placed safety above all else. In his deposition, he stated, “My first responsibility is to put safety ahead of winning.” He also testified that a single sign or symptom of a head injury was enough to remove a player from a game, consistent with accepted concussion protocols.
When the student-athlete complained of feeling unwell and reported a headache during a scrimmage, the head coach immediately removed him from practice and did not allow him to return. Assistant coaches also monitored players closely. When the head coach observed the player vomiting water, he checked on him, and an ambulance was called shortly thereafter.
The player’s own deposition supported this culture. He testified that coaches never instructed players to play through injuries and confirmed there was no coercion between the game in which he claimed he suffered a head injury and the following contest. He also acknowledged that if a player reported a headache, coaches required an evaluation. These practices reflected a responsible approach to concussion management rather than negligence.
Concussions Were Not a Teamwide Issue
The student-athlete’s testimony also undercut any claim that the program had a broader concussion problem. When asked whether any other players suffered head injuries or concussions during his time on the team, he responded, “No, it was just me… nobody else suffered any concussions or anything like that.”
While one player’s experience alone cannot establish whether a program is safe, this testimony did not support allegations of a systemic failure to protect athletes.
The Alleged Game Concussion Lacked Credibility
The student-athlete’s account of sustaining a concussion during the game became less persuasive when viewed alongside the broader record.
During his deposition, when first asked about injuries from that game, he mentioned only a leg cramp rather than a head injury. He later claimed he told an assistant coach his head hurt during the second half, but that coach testified the player never reported head pain. Another assistant coach who worked directly with him by position likewise testified he had no knowledge of any head injury. The student-athlete did not ask to leave the game, request medical attention, or display obvious signs that would have triggered intervention.
Additional evidence suggested he may have concealed his symptoms. In a Facebook Messenger exchange with a teammate, he wrote, “I have a concussion but don’t tell anyone.” Members of the coaching staff later asked whether he was ready to play in the following game, and he indicated that he was. During the practice week after the alleged injury, he reportedly stated that his head “wasn’t bad anymore.” He also did not seek medical treatment immediately after the game.
Taken together, this evidence suggested that the player managed his symptoms privately rather than fully reporting them to the coaching staff.
Evaluating the Plaintiff’s Expert Opinions
One of the plaintiff’s experts appeared to place greater weight on the student’s account than on the testimony of multiple coaches. During his deposition, however, the expert acknowledged an important point: if a player does not report symptoms and coaches observe no signs consistent with a concussion, there is no trigger for concussion protocols. In my view, that acknowledgment reflected the practical realities coaches face during competition.
I also found aspects of another expert’s testimony regarding helmet fitting to be unpersuasive. She asserted that the coaches lacked sufficient knowledge of proper helmet fitting, yet there is no widely recognized national or state standard requiring coaches to receive specific helmet-fitting training. Equipment manufacturers provide guidance, but practices vary, and many helmets are distributed without detailed fitting instructions.
Some of her recommendations also raised questions. For example, she testified that “the crown of the helmet is one finger length above the eyebrow.” As stated, that measurement lacks precision and could be interpreted in ways that would position a helmet improperly, making it difficult to apply consistently in practice.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence presented, I concluded that the head coach and his staff fulfilled their responsibilities regarding player safety. They removed players at the first sign of potential injury, encouraged athletes to report symptoms, and responded appropriately when the plaintiff exhibited symptoms during the earlier scrimmage.
The evidence also showed that the student-athlete did not clearly report symptoms during the game in question and, by his own statements, minimized the injury while asking others not to disclose it. Those facts weighed heavily in evaluating the coaching staff’s actions.
This case illustrates one of the fundamental challenges in high school athletics. Coaches are expected to remain vigilant for signs of injury, but they also depend on honest communication from athletes, particularly when symptoms are not outwardly apparent. In my opinion, the evidence did not support a finding of negligence against the school district, the head coach, or the football program.
Chris Fore is a veteran Administrator, Athletic Director, and Head Football Coach from Southern California; he currently serves as a Principal. He has written four books and produced coaching manuals, available at EightLaces.org. Both schools where he served as Athletic Director set school records for championships won in a single school year, and were recognized for both sportsmanship and academic excellence. Fore holds a Master’s in Coaching and Athletic Administration and multiple education credentials. A Certified Athletic Administrator, he served as President of the California Coaches Association (2018–2021) and has held various other leadership roles in several different organizations. A sought-after speaker, Fore has contributed to national sports publications and appeared on radio and podcasts. He also serves as an expert witness in athletic lawsuits.
