Quick Summary:
It may not be too late for a former college football player—or, in some circumstances, his family—to bring an NCAA brain-injury claim simply because he last played decades ago. Many state courts apply a “discovery rule,” meaning the statute of limitations may begin when the player learns, or reasonably should have learned, that symptoms are connected to football-related head trauma, rather than on the date of his last game. But the rule is intensely fact-specific, and waiting after warning signs emerge can be costly.
At Langfitt PLLC, our national practice is based in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania, and we focus on representing former football players and families confronting the consequences of repetitive head trauma. As lead counsel in Schmitz v. NCAA
and Geathers v. NCAA, we have seen firsthand why the timing question deserves a careful, evidence-based review—not a quick assumption that a claim is too old.
The Short Answer: Do Not Count Yourself Out
A statute of limitations is the legal deadline for filing a lawsuit. In an ordinary injury case, that deadline often begins when the injury happens. Football brain-injury cases are different because the harm may be hidden for years. A player may have finished college feeling fine, only to develop worsening memory loss, depression, impaired judgment, headaches, mood changes, balance problems, or cognitive decline much later.
That is where the discovery rule can matter. In plain English, it recognizes that a person cannot always sue for an injury before he has a fair reason to know he has it—or that someone else’s conduct may be connected to it. The question is not always, “When did you last play?” It can be, “When did you know, or when should a reasonably diligent person have known, that a significant injury might be tied to football?”
For a deeper overview, see Statute of Limitations & the Discovery Rule.
What the Discovery Rule Does—and Does Not—Do
The discovery rule is not an automatic extension and it does not make every decades-old claim timely. Each state has its own limitations period and its own rules about when a claim accrues. Courts also look closely at medical records, symptoms, diagnoses, football history, prior claims, public information, and what the player and family were told at different points in time.
In many jurisdictions, the rule delays the clock until there is enough information to connect an injury to a possible cause. A precise CTE diagnosis is not always required. On the other hand, a plaintiff generally cannot ignore longstanding symptoms, medical advice, or other information that should have prompted investigation. The law asks for reasonable diligence, not perfect medical certainty.
That distinction is crucial in an NCAA concussion lawsuit. A former player may not have understood during college that “bell-ringers,” blackouts, repeated contact, or playing through symptoms could lead to a later brain disease. The key is building a reliable timeline of what he experienced, what doctors found, and when a potential football connection became reasonably apparent.
Schmitz v. NCAA: The Ohio Supreme Court’s 2018 Decision
On October 31, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in Schmitz v. NCAA. Steven Schmitz played football at Notre Dame in the 1970s. Decades later, he was diagnosed with CTE and later experienced severe memory loss, cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia. He and his wife filed suit in 2014, alleging that Notre Dame and the NCAA failed to warn, educate, and protect him against the long-term consequences of repeated concussive and subconcussive impacts.
The case reached the Ohio Supreme Court after the defendants argued that the claims came too late. The court held that the complaint did not conclusively establish that the claims were time-barred, so dismissal at that early stage was improper. Put simply, the court did not say every former player’s claim was timely. It said the allegations of a latent injury and the timing of discovery could not be resolved against the Schmitz family merely from the face of the complaint.
That mattered. The decision recognized that a delayed, progressive brain injury may raise a real factual question about when the limitations period began. Langfitt PLLC served as lead counsel in Schmitz. You can read more about the case at Schmitz v. NCAA.
Berton v. NCAA: Why Timing Evidence Can Change the Result
Important date correction:
the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Berton v. NCAA
was filed on February 27, 2026, not February 27, 2025. The court affirmed a compulsory nonsuit for the NCAA, concluding that the plaintiffs’ claims were untimely under Pennsylvania’s discovery-rule standard.
The Berton
decision shows the other side of the analysis. The court focused on evidence that Sean Berton had experienced symptoms and had information linking significant harm to football-related concussions years before he filed suit in September 2021. The court concluded he was on “inquiry notice” no later than 2011 and therefore had a duty to investigate a possible legal claim. It emphasized that a plaintiff need not know the full extent of an injury, the exact medical label, every responsible party, or the precise legal theory before the clock can begin.
Berton
does not erase Schmitz. Instead, the two decisions demonstrate why these cases turn on the particular record, the governing state law, and the evidence concerning knowledge and reasonable diligence. A later diagnosis can be important, but it is not necessarily the only date that matters.
How to Know If Your Clock May Still Be Running
- Identify the state-law issue. The applicable deadline and discovery rule may depend on where the case is filed and other facts.
- Build a symptom timeline. Note when memory, mood, sleep, balance, headaches, concentration, or behavior changes first appeared and how they progressed.
- Gather medical records. Neurology visits, neuropsychological testing, primary-care records, disability filings, and records of concussion treatment may be important.
- Document football exposure. Include schools, years played, positions, known concussions, “bell-ringers,” loss of consciousness, and repeated contact.
- Ask when the football connection became apparent. Consider what the player, spouse, and doctors knew—and when they knew it.
- Act promptly. Once symptoms and a potential connection are on the table, delay can create a serious statute-of-limitations defense.
Families May Have Important Questions, Too
These issues can arise when a former player is unable to manage his own affairs or has died. Depending on the state and the circumstances, an estate, spouse, or other family member may have questions about a personal-injury claim, a wrongful-death claim, loss of consortium, or the effect of a posthumous diagnosis. Those claims have distinct rules and deadlines. The player’s medical history and the family’s knowledge can both matter.
Langfitt PLLC approaches these matters with the care they require: detailed records, qualified experts, a complete football history, and a close review of the governing law. Our experience as lead counsel in Geathers v. NCAA
and Schmitz v. NCAA
informs that work, but every former college football player’s circumstances are different.
Do Not Let an Assumption Decide the Case
It is understandable to assume that a claim ended when a player left college. For latent football brain injuries, that assumption can be wrong. It is equally risky to assume that a later diagnosis automatically restarts the clock. The right answer depends on the state, the legal claims, the medical and football evidence, and the dates that can be proven.
If you or your family is considering whether to sue the NCAA for a concussion, CTE, or another football-related brain injury, Contact Us
to discuss the circumstances and evaluate the timing issues carefully.
FAQ
Is there one nationwide deadline to sue the NCAA?
No. Statutes of limitations and discovery-rule standards are generally governed by state law. The correct deadline requires a case-specific legal analysis.
Does a CTE diagnosis automatically make a claim timely?
No. A diagnosis may be highly important, especially where an injury was latent. But courts may examine earlier symptoms, medical evaluations, and information suggesting a connection to football.
Do I need to have been formally diagnosed with a concussion in college?
Not necessarily. Many former players were never diagnosed at the time. Evidence of repeated head impacts, symptoms, teammate testimony, medical evidence, and football records can all be relevant.
Can a spouse or family member bring a claim?
Possibly. Available claims depend on the facts, the state’s law, whether the player is living, and the status of any estate or representative.
What should I preserve now?
Preserve medical records, football photographs and records, disability documents, journals, communications, and information from family members who observed changes over time.
