Numerous former professional football players initiated a class action law suit against the NFL earlier this year claiming that the football league and team coaches had encouraged players to "use their helmets as on-field weapons" as a way of making the game more exciting for the fans. The complaint filed by the former players alleged that the actions of the NFL may have placed players at a heightened risk for traumatic brain injury.

As a remedy to the perceived situation, the former players who are the acting plaintiffs in this case are requesting that the NFL pay for a medical monitoring program that would evaluate both current and former players' risk of serious brain trauma. The crux of the ex-players' case lies in the assumption that repetitive head injuries, such as a concussion, could lead to debilitating brain disorders later in life.

The NFL responded earlier this month with a 45-page motion to dismiss the case. One of the main reasons given for dismissal alleges that the plaintiffs did not state sufficient grounds for their claim.

The NFL stated that, "Medical monitoring claims must be premised on exposure to 'proven hazardous substances' that invade the body.'" The league argues that concussions are not such a "substance" and, therefore, the players' claim is lawfully deficient.

The NFL also claimed that the former players do not have standing to require medical monitoring of current players. The traditional concept of "standing" requires that the plaintiffs incurred an actual injury from the defendant in order to bring a legal claim. However, in this case, the issues are expected to turn on the judicial interpretation of a number of collective bargaining agreements.

Source: Courthouse News Service, "NFL tries to dismiss ex-players' helmet case" Nov. 10, 2011