Former NFL Players File Class Action Lawsuit Against NFL Disability Plans, Board, Commissioner Roger Goodell For Systemic Bias Against Disabled Players

New data suggest “neutral” NFL-hired doctors who deny more claims receive higher compensation. Baltimore, MD – Former NFL players today filed a class action lawsuit against The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan and NFL Player Disability & Neurocognitive Benefits Plan (the Plan), the Disability Board that administers the Plan, and each of the […]

February 9, 2023

New data suggest “neutral” NFL-hired doctors who deny more claims receive higher compensation.

Baltimore, MD – Former NFL players today filed a class action lawsuit against The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan and NFL Player Disability & Neurocognitive Benefits Plan (the Plan), the Disability Board that administers the Plan, and each of the Board’s members, including NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The lawsuit claims the Plan and its Board, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), have wrongfully denied countless former players the benefits to which they are entitled, are in breach of their fiduciary duty of loyalty to disabled players, and to this day are continuing this misconduct.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Baltimore Division of the U.S. District Court for Maryland, claims the defendants have repeatedly, willfully, and systematically breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty through affirmative misrepresentations, hostile and adversarial positions, bad faith, active concealment, and otherwise failing to act in the interest of disabled retired players and their beneficiaries. The plaintiffs also claim the Board’s actions are financially motivated, with the goal of limiting benefit payments to the very players for whom the Plan was designed.

While the doctors tasked with evaluating former players to determine benefit eligibility are touted as “neutral physicians,” in reality they are hired and paid by the Plan’s Board. Numerous physicians have been paid between $1.1 million and $1.8 million in direct and indirect compensation by the Board, and new data strongly suggests that the more the Board pays a physician or neuropsychologist for their work, the more likely they are to deny applicants their benefits. The former players allege that these physicians are not neutral and are clearly conflicted by the Plan. By misrepresenting those facts, the defendants have created a sham process for determining eligibility.

“Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the NFL’s betrayal of its players once we are no longer on the field and making them money,” said Eric Smith, one of ten named plaintiffs in the lawsuit and a former safety who played for seven seasons in the NFL. “Through this lawsuit, we are bringing these injustices to light and demanding the NFL fulfill its responsibilities to players rather than continue to try to dodge accountability every step of the way.”

The complaint further alleges that the Board has, by its own members’ admission in testimony, failed to review all the relevant material for claims as required by the Plan’s terms and despite leading applicants to believe otherwise in their decision letters. Instead, they engaged in a pattern of rubber-stamping the erroneous conclusions of physicians financially incentivized to deny claims. In the aggregate, the former players claim that the defendants have repeatedly breached their fiduciary duty and acted as their adversary rather than as a fiduciary.

Former players are represented in this lawsuit by Seeger Weiss LLP; Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC; Athlaw LLP; and Advocate Law Group PC.

“After years of putting their bodies and brains on the line with the NFL’s promise of assistance should they need it, these former players deserve far more than a sham process in which there is little to no chance of success,” the law firms said in a joint statement. “It is shameful that an organization worth billions of dollars is depriving former players of their rightful benefits. We plan to right this wrong.”

The lawsuit seeks to recover benefits due to plaintiffs as well as enforce and clarify their rights under the terms of the Plan, formally prohibit acts and practices that violate the terms of the Plan or ERISA, and obtain other appropriate equitable relief including removal of the Board’s members.

For a copy of the complaint, click here.

Related News

September 15, 2026
Lawdragon Names Seven Seeger Weiss Partners to 2027 500 Leading Litigators in America Guide

Lawdragon has recognized seven Seeger Weiss partners—Christopher Seeger, Stephen Weiss, Parvin Aminolroaya, Ben Barnett, David Buchanan, Shauna Itri, and Jennifer Scullion—in its 2027 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America guide. The guide highlights attorneys whose courtroom, investigative, and regulatory work has produced real impacts for the clients they represent, with many honorees credited with influencing entire […]

Read More
September 14, 2026
Seeger Weiss Recognized as a Finalist for Litigation Department of the Year, Products Liability/Mass Torts Category at the 2026 New Jersey Legal Awards

Seeger Weiss has been recognized as a finalist for Litigation Department of the Year, Products Liability/Mass Torts at the New Jersey Law Journal’s 2026 New Jersey Legal Awards. This recognition reflects a year of leadership appointments and firm growth across the department’s most significant matters. In March 2025, founding partner Christopher A. Seeger was appointed […]

Read More
September 2, 2026
Seeger Weiss Appointed as a Member of the Interim Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in In re: Garden Grove Chemical Plant Evacuation Litigation

Seeger Weiss LLP has been appointed as a member of the Interim Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in In re Garden Grove Chemical Plant Evacuation, a consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Seeger Weiss founding partners Christopher A. Seeger and Stephen A. Weiss are leading the firm’s involvement […]

Read More
↑