A federal judge from the Northern District of Mississippi has declined to reopen the claim of a former professional football player, who alleged that he was entitled to more disability benefits than he was originally awarded by the NFL’s Retirement Board.
Plaintiff Christopher Hudson began playing in the NFL in 1995. His 8-year career included stints at multiple teams, including the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Chicago Bears, and the Atlanta Falcons. After his retirement, Hudson began experiencing health issues, such as anxiety, sleep problems, social withdrawal, headaches, memory loss, and sensitivity to lights. Hudson claimed many of the issues were attributable to the head trauma he suffered as an NFL player.
Before beginning its analysis, the court noted that the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan (the Plan) provides retirement, disability, and related benefits to eligible players. Under the Plan, players can file applications to receive benefits. The Retirement Board (the Board) administers the Plan and possesses the sole authority to grant or deny players’ applications.
“Once a player files his application, the Board makes an initial determination as to whether the player is totally and permanently disabled,” wrote the court. “If the Board finds that the player is totally and permanently disabled, the player is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits (T & P benefits). However, the amount of money the player receives depends on which of four T& P benefit categories the Board determines is appropriate. The four categories are: Active Football, Active Nonfootball, Football Degenerative, or Inactive. The latter two categories are relevant here.
“The Plan defines a Football Degenerative injury as a disability that ‘arises out of League football activities, and results in total and permanent disability before fifteen years after the end of the Player’s last Credited Season.’ The Plan provides that the Inactive category applies if ‘(1) the total and permanent disability arises from other than league football activities while the Player is a Vested Inactive Player, or (2) the disability(ies) arises out of League football activities and results in total and permanent disability fifteen or more years after the end of the Player’s last Credited Season.’ Thus, the difference in the two categories is whether or not the player’s injury arose from football activities. Importantly, the minimum benefits for the Football Degenerative category is no less than $4,000 per month while the minimum benefits for the Inactive category is offset by any disability benefits provided by an employer other than the NFL or another employer. Thus, it is financially beneficial for a player to be placed in the Football Degenerative category.”
On May 12, 2011, the Board awarded Hudson Inactive T & P benefits, citing depression and cognitive impairments as the basis for the classification. Hudson was unsatisfied with his placement in the Inactive category rather than the Football Degenerative category. He believed that he had presented sufficient evidence that he received a traumatic brain injury while participating in football activities, entitling him to Football Degenerative classification. Thus, he filed a request for reclassification with the Board. This request was denied on November 16, 2011.
Almost three years later, Hudson received approval of Social Security disability benefits, wherein the Social Security Administration (SSA) noted that Hudson was disabled as of December 31, 2009. The SSA noted traumatic brain injury as the basis for its decision to award benefits.
Hudson then used the SSA’s designation to appeal the Board’s denial of reclassification. On May 21, 2015, the Board denied Hudson’s appeal, stating that Hudson “did not provide sufficient evidence of ‘changed circumstances’ to warrant reclassification,” according to the court. The Board then notified Hudson that he had exhausted his administrative remedies.
On August 3, 2015, Hudson filed a complaint against the Board, pursuant to Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1132. In his complaint, Hudson alleged that “the Board had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in his claim by failing to address numerous pieces of evidence supportive of his Request for Reclassification and in failing to provide any notice to him or other plan recipients as to how it defined the term ‘changed circumstances’ for the purposes of meeting the Plan’s Reclassification requirements.”
The court recommended that the Board reconsider Hudson’s claims and submit a status report concerning the outcome of the Board’s decision as to Hudson’s claim. By virtue of that order, the case was stayed and administratively closed pending a further order from the instant court.
On June 24, 2016, Hudson filed the present motion, “requesting the court to reopen the case and set a status conference based upon a dispute between the parties as to events surrounding Hudson’s medical examination by Dr. Barry Jordan. In the motion, Hudson states that, in order to reach a resolution in the matter, the parties agreed that Hudson would be evaluated by Dr. Jordan. However, Hudson states that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to provide Dr. Jordan necessary documents prior to the examination. Specifically, Hudson alleges that he provided documents, including past medical records, to the Board that the Board should have given to Dr. Jordan before he examined Hudson. However, he claims the Board failed to provide these important documents to Dr. Jordan. Because Dr. Jordan did not receive the documents, Hudson argues that Dr. Jordan’s post-examination report is unreliable and that the Board should not be permitted to consider it in determining whether Hudson is entitled to reclassification of benefits.
“In response, the Board argues that it did in fact provide the documents to Dr. Jordan. In support of this position, the Board provided a declaration from Elise Richard, who serves as a benefit coordinator with the NFL Player Benefits Office, stating that she personally prepared the records for shipment to Dr. Jordan. The Board also provided the FedEx tracking and shipping details from the shipment. In opposition, Hudson argues that the Board did not include all the documents he provided to the Board in its shipment to Dr. Jordan, emphasizing discrepancies in the weight of the package sent from Hudson to the Board and the package sent from the Board to Dr. Jordan. Hudson argues that the Board acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and requests that this court ‘craft an equitable remedy to this current dispute.’”
The court was unmoved, finding that “judicial intervention is not appropriate at this time. The basis of Hudson’s claim is that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to provide the proper documents to Dr. Jordan before Hudson’s evaluation and, thus, that Dr. Jordan’s report should be stricken from Hudson’s file before the Board makes its final determination on Hudson’s appeal. However, the court finds that judicial intervention at this point would be premature and run counter to the Fifth Circuit’s policy of permitting the administrator to make a final decision before judicial intervention. See Vega v. Nat’l Life Ins. Serv., Inc., 188 F.3d 287, 300 (5th Cir. 1999).”
Christopher Hudson v. Retirement Board, as the Administrator of The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan; N.D. Miss.; Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-00128-MPM-SAA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151115; 10/26/16
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Robert A. Donati, LEAD ATTORNEY, DONATI LAW FIRM, LLP, Memphis, TN USA; William Benjamin Ryan, DONATI LAW, PLLC, Memphis, TN USA. (for defendant) John Collinsworth McCants, LEAD ATTORNEY, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Jackson, MS USA; Michael L. Junk, LEAD ATTORNEY, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, Washington, DC USA; T. Hunt Cole, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC, Jackson, MS USA.
