Deciding whether to play football is already a cost-benefit analysis. For future athletes and their parents, determining whether to play in light of new scientific evidence depends on the amount of reliable information to which they are exposed. This Comment first provides an overview of sports-related head traumas, the NCAA settlement agreement, and medical monitoring jurisprudence. This overview is followed by an argument that explains how the medical monitoring claim is an insufficient remedy from both legal and medical perspectives. This Comment ultimately argues that while the medical monitoring claim may be dissatisfying, the concussion management protocols are viable and will have a lasting impact.
Gridlocked on the Gridiron: Medical Monitoring is the Incorrect Response to the NCAA Concussion Litigation
Volume 93, No. 2, Winter 2021