Jump to content
BostonNala370

Mike Peluso's law suit against Devils

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CRASHER said:

Why?? It sounds like the years and the wear and tear on him happened well after that moment in June of 1995...it does show how far player safety has come in these 20 years though.....

The events being described - the grand mal seizure and alleged forced return to play - happened in the 93-94 season.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triumph said:

The events being described - the grand mal seizure and alleged forced return to play - happened in the 93-94 season.

Did they??? I'd swear I read 96 somewhere, but I'm probably wrong.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 0:23 PM, BostonNala370 said:

Sadly, this is very true, getting uglier and before it is over it will be even worse. It appears that each side is digging in their heels. Loser will probably  be Pelosi because  the other side has lots of money to fight him.  Review the NFL case many died before justice a painful death only to find out the NFL lied cheated and finally gave in and still tried to cheat the players. 

This case will come down to the merits, not which side has the most money to spend on attorneys.  This is a workers' compensation case, where lawyers representing injured employees can make a very nice living.  Also, the procedures are generally stream lined -- although I don't know how it works in California -- so that either side doesn't really have to spend a ton on attorneys' fees, although I imagine Peluso's attorney is working on a contingency fee. 

Regarding the NFL, or any league for that matter when it comes to concussions, I don't pass judgment on anyone because I haven't really taken the time to read court opinions, pleadings, discovery, medical reports, etc.  But having been a lawyer where I worked on cases that were discussed in the press, I can tell you that virtually every news outlet is incapable of providing an accurate or fair depiction of what actually is going on in litigation.  Movies, with maybe the exception of A Civil Action, are even worse.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daniel said:

This case will come down to the merits, not which side has the most money to spend on attorneys.  This is a workers' compensation case, where lawyers representing injured employees can make a very nice living.  Also, the procedures are generally stream lined -- although I don't know how it works in California -- so that either side doesn't really have to spend a ton on attorneys' fees, although I imagine Peluso's attorney is working on a contingency fee. 

Regarding the NFL, or any league for that matter when it comes to concussions, I don't pass judgment on anyone because I haven't really taken the time to read court opinions, pleadings, discovery, medical reports, etc.  But having been a lawyer where I worked on cases that were discussed in the press, I can tell you that virtually every news outlet is incapable of providing an accurate or fair depiction of what actually is going on in litigation.  Movies, with maybe the exception of A Civil Action, are even worse.   

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrible. Absolutely terrible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

Terrible. Absolutely terrible. emoji26.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know virtually nothing about this case.  I am, however, a practicing attorney that has handled personal injury suits from both sides and other cases that have been reported in the media.  

Based on that I will advise everyone that pretty much every media outlet, especially sports media, gets basic facts about court proceedings wrong, and almost always gives undue weight to certain testimony to fit a certain agenda.  Media is especially bad when  reporting accurately on things like causation.

Look no further than the fact that the Peluso story takes until almost the end to say that the person Peluso is relying on to say he can’t travel is not a medical doctor.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I know virtually nothing about this case.  I am, however, a practicing attorney that has handled personal injury suits from both sides and other cases that have been reported in the media.  

Based on that I will advise everyone that pretty much every media outlet, especially sports media, gets basic facts about court proceedings wrong, and almost always gives undue weight to certain testimony to fit a certain agenda.  Media is especially bad when  reporting accurately on things like causation.

Look no further than the fact that the Peluso story takes until almost the end to say that the person Peluso is relying on to say he can’t travel is not a medical doctor.

And, in several spots, fails to correctly spell "grand mal seizure". In a letter to a quasi-judicial organization. Not exactly the most professional job.

Not to mention, a "psychoanalyst" wouldn't be the right person to make that determination. Hell, even a psychiatrist with an M.D.. would be questionable, that info should come from his treating neurologist, I would think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

And, in several spots, fails to correctly spell "grand mal seizure". In a letter to a quasi-judicial organization. Not exactly the most professional job.

Not to mention, a "psychoanalyst" wouldn't be the right person to make that determination. Hell, even a psychiatrist with an M.D.. would be questionable, that info should come from his treating neurologist, I would think. 

And I will also add that it's pretty easy for an attorney to find some medical doctor who will testify to anything so long as it's within the realm of medical possibility.  The fact that Peluso could not do that at this point means he either has an incompetent attorney or he has a bullsh!t defense to showing up at his hearing.  Whatever the case, the fact that this media account treated the "life threatening" claim at face value and implies that his adversaries are up to something nefarious is a prime example of why most people don't take journalists seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

And I will also add that it's pretty easy for an attorney to find some medical doctor who will testify to anything so long as it's within the realm of medical possibility. 

The standard here is “more likely than it”, i.e. 51%. Can’t even tell you how many docs have told me they couldn’t testify to something, I tell them that, and then they have no issue with it. 

As an attorney, if you can’t get a doctor to back your play, you either don’t know how to find a doctor, or you have a terrible case with no merit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incompetent lawyers and unqualified brain professionals aside, I think we can all agree that Peluso obviously has major neurological issues at this point in his life, and it's incredibly sad. I feel for the guy. That's no way to live.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

Incompetent lawyers and unqualified brain professionals aside, I think we can all agree that Peluso obviously has major neurological issues at this point in his life, and it's incredibly sad. I feel for the guy. That's no way to live.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, of course.  The issue though is how much of that is due to playing hockey.  It's certainly plausible from where we all sit that it has a lot to do with it.  But it doesn't do anyone any favors for a media outlet to do poor reporting on what's actually going on.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy hell that was brutal to watch.

My dog has grand mal seizures that are now controlled by meds, and I've seen no fewer than two people have them in person. Its absolutely horrifying if you don't know what's happening.

I've had my share of concussions from football, hockey and even training 4 years ago, and while they're nowhere near to the degree that these guys suffered, I still do worry at times I may have lingering effects years down the road. I'll have a long hard decision to make when my kids are born if I'm going to put them in football [I can honestly say I'm leaning towards not] when they're old enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Yes, of course.  The issue though is how much of that is due to playing hockey.  It's certainly plausible from where we all sit that it has a lot to do with it.  But it doesn't do anyone any favors for a media outlet to do poor reporting on what's actually going on.

I don't know how they can establish that link. Perhaps they can, perhaps they can't. There are tons of people with seizure disorders that didn't play pro sports and didn't have repeated concussions or head trauma.

I don't know any of the medicine behind Peluso's case, so I am not making these statements from any position of knowledge, merely playing Devil's advocate (pun totally intended). 

But I think its far too easy to just say its all concussion related because today we blame everything, from headaches to multiple homicides, on concussions. So much so that I think Peluso may have a better chance at success than he maybe should, just based on public perception. There's a good portion of the population that will automatically believe its concussion related, get a handful of them on your jury and you're on your way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mfitz804 said:

I don't know how they can establish that link. Perhaps they can, perhaps they can't. There are tons of people with seizure disorders that didn't play pro sports and didn't have repeated concussions or head trauma.

I don't know any of the medicine behind Peluso's case, so I am not making these statements from any position of knowledge, merely playing Devil's advocate (pun totally intended). 

But I think its far too easy to just say its all concussion related because today we blame everything, from headaches to multiple homicides, on concussions. So much so that I think Peluso may have a better chance at success than he maybe should, just based on public perception. There's a good portion of the population that will automatically believe its concussion related, get a handful of them on your jury and you're on your way. 

The fact that he seems to be relying on a psychologist and not an MD for this particular argument leads me to believe that the medical consensus is that he was prone to these kind of seizures regardless of any head trauma he suffered while playing.

It's a workman's comp case, so I imagine there won't be a jury.  But it is in California, which has a reputation of being plaintiff friendly for pretty much everything.  The fact that the league's/Devil's insurance carrier is fighting it this hard instead of settling is a pretty good indication that Peluso doesn't have as strong a case as the media makes it sound like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

The fact that he seems to be relying on a psychologist and not an MD for this particular argument leads me to believe that the medical consensus is that he was prone to these kind of seizures regardless of any head trauma he suffered while playing.

It's a workman's comp case, so I imagine there won't be a jury.  But it is in California, which has a reputation of being plaintiff friendly for pretty much everything.  The fact that the league's/Devil's insurance carrier is fighting it this hard instead of settling is a pretty good indication that Peluso doesn't have as strong a case as the media makes it sound like.

You're correct. Being a trial attorney that's always my focus. 

While he may have relied on a psychologist regarding his inability to travel, I sure hope his attorneys have a better expert for the meat of the case. If not, I can't imagine he's got a good chance of success, likely for the reasons you indicated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

I'll repeat my warning that journalists, especially sports journalists, are almost always incapable of reporting on legal proceedings accurately much less fairly, especially when those legal proceedings involve expert testimony.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll repeat my warning that journalists, especially sports journalists, are almost always incapable of reporting on legal proceedings accurately much less fairly, especially when those legal proceedings involve expert testimony.

Duely noted, just thought the Lou testimony was interesting to read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the fact that the injury was caused by something that's OUTSIDE the rules of the game?

In football, guys get head injuries all the time by blocking, accidental head to head contact, etc.. While some plays may be intentional and may be penalized (hence "illegal" in the game of football), to some extent, it can't be avoided. 

Peluso is alleging injuries that he sustained doing something that is outside the rules of hockey. While fighting is accepted, especially back then, it is illegal in that you get penalized for it. Whatever the expectations may have been, Peluso was under no obligation to fight anyone. Especially after having already sustained injury. Seems to me that was a choice he made. 

I guess it could very well be that his other choice was to retire, as a "Mike Peluso minus the fighting" is probably not employable in the NHL in that era.

I don't know, something just rubs me the wrong way about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really feel bad for Mike, but I don't feel anyone is responsible for his injuries other than himself.  He knew what he was getting in to, maybe not the fact that he had already sustained some head trauma, but the simple fact, from a common sense standpoint, that head injuries and potential brain damage would be possible as a result of engaging in fighting - fighting which was optional and voluntary.  He was under no obligation to step foot on the rink, much less take part in combat.

It's interesting that this is a worker's compensation claim, because I imagine most of us here are employed and probably have some type of blue or white collar job, myself included, and with that, we all have an expectation and a right that our employer provides for us reasonable safety measures while working for them and/or on their property.  I am surprised the NHL and/or the teams in the league don't make players sign a waiver or at least put language in their contracts stating that, quite obviously, this is a physical and contact sport, and with it comes potential bodily harm, be it intentional or accidental.  The league itself has rules now that provide for basic safety measures with the requirements to wear specific padding, and more recent and obvious things like the mandating of face shields for all players - anything beyond that, to me, is on the player.  

I wonder if anyone has examined his medical history - particularly if anyone in his family has prior episodes of seizures, and also if he ever sustained any head injuries earlier in life, prior to entering the league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

It's interesting that this is a worker's compensation claim, because I imagine most of us here are employed and probably have some type of blue or white collar job, myself included, and with that, we all have an expectation and a right that our employer provides for us reasonable safety measures while working for them and/or on their property.  I am surprised the NHL and/or the teams in the league don't make players sign a waiver or at least put language in their contracts stating that, quite obviously, this is a physical and contact sport, and with it comes potential bodily harm, be it intentional or accidental.  The league itself has rules now that provide for basic safety measures with the requirements to wear specific padding, and more recent and obvious things like the mandating of face shields for all players - anything beyond that, to me, is on the player.  

I can break that down. 

1. With finite exceptions, you are not allowed to bring a lawsuit against your employer; you have to bring a Worker's Compensation claim. 

2. The current lawsuit isn't a Worker's Comp claim; he sued the insurance company (and others) for allegedly withholding information that prevented him from getting a fair hearing in his Worker's Comp claim. he could not have filed the lawsuit otherwise, he would have been stuck with a Worker's Comp claim, which is not done in Federal Court nor in the same manner as the lawsuit. His complaint alleges he fits an exemption from Workers Comp law, permitting him to sue directly. 

3. He's alleging the teams were negligent in allowing him to play despite injury/not informing him of the risks of doing so. A waiver, as such, would not be applicable, as you cannot have someone waive your liability for your own acts of negligence; if you do, its not enforceable. 

So while a waiver could say, if you fall on your head and get hurt, we aren't responsible (like what you sign at a skating rink), but it only applies if your falling is not due to their negligence. You would also have to show your injury wasn't due to an inherent risk of the sport, but that's a separate issue from the waiver. 

I'm reading the actual complaint right now. I am sure it was linked somewhere in the thread, but it's pretty interesting and most of it is in plain language that non-lawyers can understand. 

Peluso Complaint

 

Edited by mfitz804

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I can break that down. 

1. With finite exceptions, you are not allowed to bring a lawsuit against your employer; you have to bring a Worker's Compensation claim. 

2. The current lawsuit isn't a Worker's Comp claim; he sued the insurance company (and others) for allegedly withholding information that prevented him from getting a fair hearing in his Worker's Comp claim. he could not have filed the lawsuit otherwise, he would have been stuck with a Worker's Comp claim, which is not done in Federal Court nor in the same manner as the lawsuit. His complaint alleges he fits an exemption from Workers Comp law, permitting him to sue directly. 

3. He's alleging the teams were negligent in allowing him to play despite injury/not informing him of the risks of doing so. A waiver, as such, would not be applicable, as you cannot have someone waive your liability for your own acts of negligence; if you do, its not enforceable. 

So while a waiver could say, if you fall on your head and get hurt, we aren't responsible (like what you sign at a skating rink), but it only applies if your falling is not due to their negligence. You would also have to show your injury wasn't due to an inherent risk of the sport, but that's a separate issue from the waiver. 

I'm reading the actual complaint right now. I am sure it was linked somewhere in the thread, but it's pretty interesting and most of it is in plain language that non-lawyers can understand. 

Peluso Complaint

 

1- From a very simplistic and also extremely ignorant point of view, isn't that kind of po-tay-to, po-tah-to?   What's the difference between a Worker's Comp claim and suing your employer directly?  I imagine a worker's comp claim has limits in terms of the damages he can claim and/or seek compensation for? (which I also assume is why he would want to sue directly and/or in federal court...so he could go after more?)

3- Not directing this towards you, but rather Peluso since it's his allegations, but...I'm not sure how you can be negligent in allowing someone to pursue free will.  Seems sort of contradictory to me.  I fail to see how it's any different from requiring someone to sign a waiver before they go skydiving.  There are risks involved, and no one is forcing the person to get in the plane and jump out.  If you end up dying and the plane didn't crash or anything like that, it's not the company's fault, the pilot's fault, or anyone else.  You chose to jump out.  You can't possibly try to blame people/companies for the various unknowns in life.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and also, we don't have unions down here so I tend to forget they exist, but what's the role in the player's union in all of this?  Should they be backing him and representing him?  I feel like the NHLPA has done this before (in cases like Boogaard, Belak, etc).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.