CASE 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM Document 351 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE ) No. 14-md-2551-SRN-JSM PLAYERS’ CONCUSSION INJURY ) LITIGATION ) PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED ) CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION ) COMPLAINT ) This Document Relates to: ) ALL ACTIONS ) ___________________________________ ) CASE 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM Document 351 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 133 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................. 8 PARTIES .................................................................................................................................... 9 I. THE PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN HARMED ........................................................................................................................ 9 A. Dan LaCouture ..................................................................................................... 9 B. Michael Peluso ................................................................................................... 12 C. Gary Leeman ...................................................................................................... 16 D. Bernie Nicholls ................................................................................................... 17 E. David Christian ................................................................................................... 19 F. Reed Larson ...................................................................................................... 20 G. Stephen Ludzik ................................................................................................... 22 H. Breach and Causation Allegations Applicable to Plaintiffs and the Classes ..... 23 II. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TOLLED ...................................................... 26 A. The NHL’S Duty to Plaintiffs Underscores the Propriety of Equitable Tolling ...................................................................................................... 26 B. Plaintiffs’ Special Susceptibility to Reliance on NHL for Information ............. 33 III. DEFENDANT IS A RESIDENT OF THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT ............................ 39 IV. THE NHL’S KNOWLEDGE AND FAILURE TO WARN ......................................... 40 A. Brain Injuries, Concussions, and Neurological Damage ................................... 40 B. 85 year History of Medical Studies Related to Sports and Concussion ............. 44 C. The Medical Community Has Focused on Hockey Players’ Brain Injuries and the NHL Has Participated in or Attended Many of the Symposia Regarding Brain Injuries in Sports ..................................................................... 58 D. NHL’s Knowledge of the Devastating Effects of Brain Trauma Documented by Violent Incidents ........................................................................................... 61 E. Contact in Training Camp and Practices Caused Repeated Exposure to Concussive and Subconcussive Impacts ............................................................ 72 i CASE 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM Document 351 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 133 V. THE NHL HAS PROMOTED UNNECESSARY BRUTALITY AND VIOLENCE TO BECOME A DOMINANT ELEMENT OF THE GAME AS PLAYED IN THE LEAGUE ........................................................................................ 73 A. NHL Hockey Has Created an Fostered an Unnecessarily Violent Sport ........... 73 B. Other Sports Are Violent Too, But Extreme Violence Is Unique to NHL Hockey .................................................................................................. 79 VI. RATHER THAN USE ITS RESOURCES TO PROTECT PLAYERS FROM DANGERS, ABOUT WHICH THE NHL KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, IT CAPITALIZED ON VIOLENCE WHILE DOWNPLAYING RISKS ................... 82 A. NHL Can Financially Fulfill Its Safety Duties to Its Players ............................. 82 B. The NHL Admits It Profits from Extreme Violence .......................................... 83 C. Despite Its Knowledge the NHL Downplayed the Risks of Head Trauma........ 89 VII. WHILE PROMOTING A CULTURE OF VIOLENCE BY WHICH IT PROFITS AND DOWNPLAYING RISKS, THE NHL VOLUNTARILY UNDERTOOK A DUTY OF CARE TO ITS PLAYERS ...................................................................... 91 VIII. INSTEAD OF PROTECTING ITS PLAYERS, THE NHL SAT ON THE BENCH FOR ANOTHER 14 YEARS WHILE THE EVIDENCE KEPT MOUNTING .......... 96 A. The Concussion Program Report Produced Nothing Until 2011 ....................... 96 B. Between 1997 and 2011, the Concussions Just Kept Coming ........................... 98 IX. NHL PLAYERS STILL FACE A RISK OF HEAD TRAUMA AND DEVASTATING LONG-TERM EFFECTS.............................................................. 100 A. The NHL Has Insufficiently and Ineffectively Protected Its Players ............. 100 B. The NHL Still Promotes Fighting and Violence ............................................. 101 C. The NHL Has No Good Excuse for Its Failure to Act, Which Has Harmed Its Players ........................................................................................................ 102 D. Plaintiffs Have Suffered Damages and Require Medical Monitoring ............ 104 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................... 106 BASES FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................... 109 COUNT I - Action for Declaratory Relief – Liability ............................................... 109 COUNT II - Medical Monitoring ............................................................................... 110 COUNT III - Negligence ............................................................................................ 115 COUNT IV - Negligent Misrepresentation by Omission ........................................... 117 COUNT V - Fraudulent Concealment ........................................................................ 119 COUNT VI - Fraud by Omission / Failure to Warn .................................................. 121 COUNT VII - Loss of Consortium ............................................................................. 123 COUNT VIII - Wrongful Death and Survival Actions .............................................. 124 ii CASE 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM Document 351 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 133 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................... 125 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ............................................................................................. 126 iii CASE 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM Document 351 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 133 Plaintiffs, by and through Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel, and Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, for their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint sue herein on their own behalf and on behalf of the Classes defined below, Defendant National Hockey League and its constituent entities, including, without limitation, NHL Enterprises, Inc., and the National Hockey League Board of Governors (collectively “Defendant,” “NHL,” or the “League”) and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), allege upon facts and information and belief, except for the allegations concerning each Plaintiff’s own actions, as follows. INTRODUCTION 1. This lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of two classes. First, on behalf of former NHL players not yet diagnosed with a neurodegenerative illness, this lawsuit seeks medical monitoring of present cellular and subcellular injuries caused by Defendant’s negligence, fraudulent concealment, fraud by omission, and failure to warn of the enhanced, long-term risk of contracting a neurodegenerative disease or condition from concussive and subconcussive impacts that occurred when they played in the NHL (“Class One”). Second, on behalf of a Class (Class Two) of former NHL players already diagnosed with a neurodegenerative illness, the complaint seeks further medical monitoring of undiagnosed neurodegenerative diseases plus compensatory damages for their diagnosed neurodegenerative illnesses (“Class Two”). Class Two also includes the estates of deceased former NHL players and spouses of former NHL players with derivative claims related to players’ diagnosed neurodegenerative diseases or conditions, who themselves do not seek medical monitoring. 1 CASE 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM Document 351 Filed 01/15/16 Page 6 of 133 2. Former NHL players are united in their agreement that they signed up to play hockey knowing that they might get injured and dinged, but they did not sign up for avoidable brain damage. This action arises from the pathological and debilitating effects of brain injuries caused by concussive and subconcussive impacts sustained by former NHL players during their professional careers. 3. Every impact to the brain is dangerous. Both concussive and subconcussive events cause permanent brain damage. During practice and games, an NHL player can sustain close to one thousand or more hits to the head in one season without any documented incapacitating concussion. Such repeated blows result in permanently-impaired brain function. 4. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, scientific evidence has for decades linked brain trauma to long-term neurological problems. 5. Defendant knew or should have