The NCAA Concussion Settlement Gives Former Players Medical Monitoring. An Individual Lawsuit Can Give Them Justice.

There are two very different paths available to former college football players harmed by the NCAA's handling of head injuries. Understanding what the Arrington class-action settlement actually provides — and what it does not — is the first step toward making the right decision for your family.

What the Arrington Settlement Is — and What It Isn't

The Arrington v. NCAA class-action settlement, finalized in 2016, established a medical monitoring program for former college athletes who sustained concussions or sub-concussive head impacts during their playing careers. The settlement created a fund to pay for periodic neurological screenings.

What it does not provide is financial compensation for brain injuries already suffered. There are no individual damages payments to class members under the settlement. A former player who participated in the Arrington class and received medical monitoring did not receive money for cognitive decline, dementia, CTE, lost income, or the suffering his family has endured. The settlement was structured to monitor — not to compensate.

This distinction matters enormously, and the NCAA has every incentive to ensure that former players do not fully understand it.

Does Participating in the Arrington Settlement Bar an Individual Lawsuit?

This is the question we hear most often, and the answer requires careful legal analysis specific to each player's situation. Participating in the medical monitoring class does not automatically extinguish a player's right to bring an individual personal injury claim for compensable damages. The two tracks address different legal injuries: the class settlement addressed the cost of monitoring future health; an individual lawsuit addresses the harm already done.

That said, the release language in the Arrington settlement is not simple, and the opt-out deadlines that governed the original class period have passed for most players. Whether a former player's individual claims remain viable depends on when their neurological condition was diagnosed, when they knew or should have known that football caused it, and how the discovery rule applies in their state. These are fact-specific questions. The answer is not the same for every player, and anyone who tells you it is has not read the cases.

The Discovery Rule: Why Many Players Can Still Sue

The statute of limitations for latent brain injury claims does not necessarily begin running the day a player left the field. In Schmitz v. NCAA, decided by the Ohio Supreme Court on October 31, 2018, our firm obtained a landmark ruling holding that a former player's knowledge of in-career head impacts was not sufficient to start the limitations clock. The clock begins when a player knew — or reasonably should have known — that those impacts caused a diagnosable neurological condition.

For many former players now experiencing memory loss, mood changes, early dementia, or a formal diagnosis of CTE, Parkinson's, or ALS, that moment of discovery is recent. The Schmitz decision is controlling authority in Ohio and persuasive authority in courts across the country. It has kept the courthouse door open for players whose cases would otherwise have been dismissed on limitations grounds alone.

What an Individual NCAA Lawsuit Can Recover

An individual lawsuit against the NCAA is a personal injury action seeking compensatory and, in appropriate cases, punitive damages. The categories of recovery available in an individual case have no equivalent in the Arrington medical monitoring settlement.

A successful individual claim can recover damages for:

• Past and future medical expenses, including the cost of neurological care and long-term supervision
• Lost income and diminished earning capacity
• Physical and cognitive pain and suffering
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• The emotional and relational harm suffered by a spouse or partner (loss of consortium)
• Punitive damages where the evidence supports a finding that the NCAA's conduct was willful or reckless

In October 2025, a South Carolina jury awarded $18 million to Robert Geathers and his wife, Debra, after deliberating for under two hours in our case against the NCAA — the first jury verdict of its kind in the country. That verdict was not available through any class settlement. It was the result of an individual lawsuit.

Who Should Seriously Consider an Individual Claim

Not every former player is a candidate for individual litigation, and we are direct about that from the first conversation. We accept roughly one in ten inquiries as clients, because we invest our own resources in each case and we pursue only cases we believe we can win at trial.

The former players and families most likely to have viable individual claims share some of these characteristics:

• A former college football player with a documented neurological diagnosis — CTE confirmed at autopsy, or a clinical diagnosis of dementia, Parkinson's, ALS, or Alzheimer's — where the timeline connects to playing career
• Symptoms that have emerged or worsened in recent years, even if the playing career ended decades ago
• A spouse, adult child, or family member who has watched a loved one decline and is seeking answers and accountability
• A family that has lost a former player and is considering a wrongful death or survival action
• A player whose NFL Concussion Settlement claim was denied or undervalued, and who played college football before reaching the professional level

If you are uncertain whether your situation fits, contact us. We will tell you honestly what we see.

What Happens If You Did Not Opt Out of the Arrington Settlement

If you did not opt out of the Arrington class during the original opt-out period, your situation is not necessarily foreclosed. The analysis turns on whether the claims you would bring in an individual lawsuit fall within the scope of the release you agreed to as a class member — and that is a legal question with real nuance.

Courts have recognized that class settlements covering medical monitoring do not automatically release unaccrued personal injury claims, particularly where the plaintiff did not have a diagnosed condition at the time the class was certified. If your diagnosis came after the settlement was finalized, or if your condition had not yet manifested when you received notice of the class, there may be a credible argument that your individual claims were never extinguished. We have analyzed this question across multiple matters and can assess where your facts fall.

Frequently Asked Questions