First AFL Player To Sue Over Concussion

[damienc]

As I have said many times previously, it is an important issue, very serious, that potentially affects a lot of clubs and the AFL.

Our club has a very serious call to make on Paddy. And even if both sides decide retirement is the right call, and I hope they do for Paddy’s sake, it won’t be the end of the matter. Paddy has every right to sue.

And If I were Koby I would be watching this court case with keen interest.

For too long clubs have not taken concussion seriously enough as an issue. It could end up costing them dearly.

Here is the article:
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/e-afl- ... 519x8.html

[GilsAuPair]

That is the end of the line for Paddy.

[GilsAuPair]

That is the end of the line for Paddy.
How can we possibly play him again?

[DJ Higgins]

Not a lawyer so unless Paddy signs something that waives his rights to sue for concussion then he is gone. Again I don't know if such a waiver exists or would hold up I. Court

[diddley]

The major difference is how Paddy has been managed.
So much has changed by both the league and the club around concussion in very recent years.
Players used to run back out with a “she’ll be right” attitude, either off their own decision or pushed by the club. This no longer happens, due to the changes. No one gets rushed back for the sake of a game anymore. The players welfare is more paramount than ever. Paddy has always been held back at every opportunity, for his own welfare, whether he/we like/s it or not.

[Impatient Sainter]

The major difference is how Paddy has been managed.
So much has changed by both the league and the club around concussion in very recent years.
Players used to run back out with a “she’ll be right” attitude, either off their own decision or pushed by the club. This no longer happens, due to the changes. No one gets rushed back for the sake of a game anymore. The players welfare is more paramount than ever. Paddy has always been held back at every opportunity, for his own welfare, whether he/we like/s it or not.

But you can garuntee the medical science surrounding these head injuries will change significantly in the next 10 years also. There is no way anyone else in their work place would be placed back into that position after these head knocks, its simply illogical.

[Linton Lodger]

The duty of care is the Doctors' not the Club's.

[Linton Lodger]

Not a lawyer so unless Paddy signs something that waives his rights to sue for concussion then he is gone. Again I don't know if such a waiver exists or would hold up I. Court

You cannot contract out of OH&S legislation.

[Saintmatt]

The duty of care is the Doctors' not the Club's.

Partially correct. The DoC resides with both the Doctor and the Club (as the Doctor is either an employee or an agent - at law - of the Club). Moreover, in a practical sense, if the Doctor were to advise against Paddy playing and the club then went ahead and selected him anyway - then clearly, the club has breached their DoC whilst the Dr has not breached his/her DoC.

Having said all of that - it is actually the AFL and not the clubs or the Drs in the gun here. All players - under the standard Player Contract - are employed by the AFL. The clubs are mere agents of the AFL. Hence, any action bought against a club is for all intents and purposes, an action against the AFL.

[Saintmatt]

Not a lawyer so unless Paddy signs something that waives his rights to sue for concussion then he is gone. Again I don't know if such a waiver exists or would hold up I. Court

You cannot contract out of OH&S legislation.

Correct. This is evidenced by the Jabbers asking players to 'sign a waiver' that clearly held no weight with Worksafe Victoria when they were fined $200K over their injection regime. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-28/ ... ce/7120044

[GilsAuPair]

The major difference is how Paddy has been managed.
So much has changed by both the league and the club around concussion in very recent years.
Players used to run back out with a “she’ll be right” attitude, either off their own decision or pushed by the club. This no longer happens, due to the changes. No one gets rushed back for the sake of a game anymore. The players welfare is more paramount than ever. Paddy has always been held back at every opportunity, for his own welfare, whether he/we like/s it or not.

The reality he is getting concussed from fairly innocuous knocks.

I just cant see how he can continue his career.

It's just a matter of time until he gets the next one or a bigger one.

[DJ Higgins]

Not a lawyer so unless Paddy signs something that waives his rights to sue for concussion then he is gone. Again I don't know if such a waiver exists or would hold up I. Court

You cannot contract out of OH&S legislation.

Correct. This is evidenced by the Jabbers asking players to 'sign a waiver' that clearly held no weight with Worksafe Victoria when they were fined $200K over their injection regime. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-28/ ... ce/7120044

I thought that was the case but it is going to open up a can of worms. IE how many concussions us too many as my limited research shows that effects don't necessarily appear for years or decades later.
End if the day it's a game and life is more important. Paddy needs to think long and hard about continuing

[barneyboyz]

The duty of care is the Doctors' not the Club's.

Partially correct. The DoC resides with both the Doctor and the Club (as the Doctor is either an employee or an agent - at law - of the Club). Moreover, in a practical sense, if the Doctor were to advise against Paddy playing and the club then went ahead and selected him anyway - then clearly, the club has breached their DoC whilst the Dr has not breached his/her DoC.

Having said all of that - it is actually the AFL and not the clubs or the Drs in the gun here. All players - under the standard Player Contract - are employed by the AFL. The clubs are mere agents of the AFL. Hence, any action bought against a club is for all intents and purposes, an action against the AFL.

Very accurate I believe. Would be interesting if this (DoC) ever comes up again at the Druggies? I don't recall that having ever really been tested by either a court of Law or AMA or even the AFL??? There was lots of twoing and froing over the good Doc's involvement (and subsequent DoC), but to this date I can't recall it being legally tested? I suppose this is an ongoing threat.

Ps. sorry to bring it back up

[Saintmatt]

Not a lawyer so unless Paddy signs something that waives his rights to sue for concussion then he is gone. Again I don't know if such a waiver exists or would hold up I. Court

You cannot contract out of OH&S legislation.

Correct. This is evidenced by the Jabbers asking players to 'sign a waiver' that clearly held no weight with Worksafe Victoria when they were fined $200K over their injection regime. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-28/ ... ce/7120044

I thought that was the case but it is going to open up a can of worms. IE how many concussions us too many as my limited research shows that effects don't necessarily appear for years or decades later.
End if the day it's a game and life is more important. Paddy needs to think long and hard about continuing

I've mentioned in other threads that in Paddy's case (and to a lesser extent Robbo) - that the AFL's insurer is the biggest impediment now to Paddy's career. If the Drs won't sign off on his return then it will effectively all be on Paddy as to whether he decides to press on, but in all likelihood - the club would never put themselves or the Dr in a tenable DoC position by selecting him. At that point - Paddy would be electing to forfeit his right to sue at a later date as the AFL's insurer would not cover his claim if the professional advice was to retire.

[shanegrambeau]

This isn't good for our whole code. Every little football club around the country, as if they aren't already struggling, merging or folding, and worried about the future, now have the added prospect that a local lawyer and player could find some common ground at their expense.

No stopping it. Eventually, clubs will be sued for mental stress too, either from abuse from other players or coaches, even fans. It's a workplace and our culture and WorkCare have long been amicable enemies, hand in glove. Sorry, I just hate this,

[happy feet]

Not a lawyer so unless Paddy signs something that waives his rights to sue for concussion then he is gone. Again I don't know if such a waiver exists or would hold up I. Court

You cannot contract out of OH&S legislation.

Correct. This is evidenced by the Jabbers asking players to 'sign a waiver' that clearly held no weight with Worksafe Victoria when they were fined $200K over their injection regime. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-28/ ... ce/7120044

That is really unfair. Don’t you remember the rotational medicine poured out by the Injectors - ‘we don’t know what the players were given, but we know it was not harmful.’

Never let them forget.

[goods]

The claim would either be compensation for causes that contributed to a shortened football career - a financial claim for loss of income due to early retirement. or a duty of care issue and injury related claim.
either was they should be covered under workplace insurance. I'm not a lawyer, however I pretend I am

[ListManager]

That is the end of the line for Paddy.

He will be back in about 10 years though suing the club for brain damage

[Saintmatt]

That is the end of the line for Paddy.

He will be back in about 10 years though suing the club for brain damage

I think the club finds itself in somewhat of a fortunate position (for once) in that Paddy's issues have occurred largely in the era of understanding and heightened knowledge around head knocks and concussion. If this was even 10 years ago - he'd keep plugging away and end up in a very bad way and quite rightly - sue all and sundry for the outcomes resultant.

The simple fact is that Paddy has been expertly counseled, advised and withdrawn from selection as a result of his issues. Hence, the likelihood of legal action against the club, its Drs and the AFL - is much less likely in this era than any time previously.