Archive for April, 2012

NFL Concussion Settlement

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

The NFL Concussion Settlement is nearing its “Effective Date” the date when the settlement finally begins going into action.

We thought highlighting some of the pitfalls of the Concussion Settlement, and its requirements may help players avoid costly mistakes and seek to provide some of this information in this entry, but will also be happy to discuss the settlement at any time at 888-335-2022 or 601-355-2022.

  • The NFL Settlement process will provide testing by physicians that the NFL had a hand in selecting.
  • The NFL will provide a Baseline neuropsychological testing in the settlement which will show any symptoms as they stand today, but will not monitor progression of diseases after the initial test
  • The NFL testing is for a limited period of time either 2 years (for age 43 and over) or 10 years (for under age 43)
  • The NFL will deny deficient claims in the concussion settlement
  • The NFL will appeal some players’ diagnoses/claims in the settlement
  • The NFL does not pay players travel costs for testing.

For these reasons we have provided additional information about the Players First Program. Read more here. And also are now accepting new NFL concussion claims clients. Read more here.

The Giddens Firm is in no way associated with the National Football League.

Comparative Fault Reform in Mississippi

Monday, April 16th, 2012

In Mississippi the law of negligence includes comparative fault or pure comparative negligence, which is a partial legal defense that has the effect of reducing the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence claim based upon the degree to which the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the injury.

Additionally in Mississippi the Defendant can “point to an empty chair” to attribute negligence to others who may not even be parties to the suit, but who may have had some hand in the negligence addressed in the lawsuit. In Mississippi this apportionment will also apply to parties who are potentially immune from liability meaning that whatever recovery would normally be assessed to this party will result in zero recovery from that source at trial.

It appears that the current system in Mississippi often results in confusion to the jury and awards that are not the actual intent of the jury. For example if a jury instruction is set up so that it awards an amount in damages and then reduces that amount by the fault attributable to the plaintiff then it is easy to see that the jury could award the amount they thought the plaintiff should receive and then that number is cut by a percentage due to comparative fault.