Case 2:12-md-02323-AB Document 10509 Filed 03/21/19 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE PLAYERS’ CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION

Case No. 12-md-2323 (AB)

Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden,
on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated,

Hon. Anita B. Brody

MDL No. 2323

Plaintiffs,
National Football League and
NFL Properties LLC,
successor-in-interest to NFL Properties,
Inc.,
Defendants.

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS
REPLY TO CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSE TO RETIRED NFL PLAYERS’
MOTION TO STOP MULTIPLE AUDITS OF SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS
THAT VIOLATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Retired NFL Players Identified by their SCM Program ID’s in their Motion (collectively
“Movants”) file this Reply to the Claims Administrator’s Response (the “Response”) [ECF No.
10488] to the Motion for Court Intervention to Stop Multiple Audits of Settlement Class Members
that Violate the Settlement Agreement and incorporated Memorandum of Law (the “Motion”), and
in support state as follows:

 Case 2:12-md-02323-AB Document 10509 Filed 03/21/19 Page 2 of 5

The Settlement Agreement does not allow for the Claims Administrator to conduct
multiple audits of the same Claim, and the Claims Administrator’s Response fails to
cite anything that provides such authority.
The Claims Administrator’s1 twenty-seven page Response can be summarized by the fact
that it fails to identify a single sentence in the Settlement Agreement or Rules Governing the Audit
of Claims (the “Audit Rules”) that permits multiple audits of the same Claim. No such authority
exists or was provided to the Claims Administrator.
The Response contains numerous pages explaining the process and, in doing so, cites many
rules and sections of the Settlement Agreement in an attempt to must support for its misapplication
of the clear terms and conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement and Audit Rules.
However, not one term of the Settlement Agreement or Audit Rules provides authority for multiple
audits. The Response sometimes postures as though there is support, citing a ruling by the Special
Master or an Audit Rule, but there is none.
While lacking authority, the Response contains numerous misstatements of fact regarding
X1Law that were not corrected by the Claims Administrator’s Amended Response. The Response
(and Amended Response) further misstates the relief requested by Movants and paints advocacy
as dissention - attempts to “circumvent established processes.” These are all distractions from the
heart of the issue – the Claims Administrator’s application of the Settlement Agreement and Audit
Rules that allows it to conduct multiple audits are not “mere processes” of administering Claims
to follow blind. Multiple audits of the same Claim is a substantive change to the Settlement
Agreement and eliminates Movants due process rights.
Movants filed a timely Motion for Extension of Time to file their Reply to address the
inaccurate statements in the Claims Administrator’s twenty-eight page Response and Amended

1

The defined terms in this Motion have the same meaning as the defined terms in the Settlement Agreement.
Page 2 of 5

 Case 2:12-md-02323-AB Document 10509 Filed 03/21/19 Page 3 of 5

Response in detail. As of the deadline to file a Reply no extension has been granted.
Movants only request that the Settlement Agreement be followed.
Movants requested the following relief from the Court: “that the Court require that the
Settlement Agreement be enforced according to its terms and enter an order directing the Claims
Administrator to release Movants’ Claims from Audit and precluding the Claims Administrator
from conducting multiple Audits of the same Claim.”
Section 10.3(h) explains what happens when an audit ends.
The Claims Administrator repeatedly states by supposition, conjecture and unsupported
assertion that it has authority to do things that are not provided for under the Settlement Agreement
but fails to cite to the language that provides such authority. Moreover, in all 28 pages of the
Response, the Claims Administrator failed to address Section 10.3(h):
(h) If, upon completion of an audit, the Claims Administrator determines
that there has not been a misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of a
material fact made in connection with the claim, the process of issuing a
Monetary Award or Derivative Claimant Award, subject to appeal, will
proceed.
See Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 6481-1, p. 61.
On page 21 of the Response, the Claims Administrator cites the Motion implying that
Movants took an unsupported position: “When the Claims Administrator concludes an audit of a
claim without making a determination of fraud, the audit process ... is over” and “[t]he process of
issuing a Monetary Award is not subject to a second audit of the claim, or a re-audit of the same
records and information . . ..” Contrary to the implication, Movants paraphrase Section 10.3(h)
which states exactly what happens at the end of an Audit.

Page 3 of 5

 Case 2:12-md-02323-AB Document 10509 Filed 03/21/19 Page 4 of 5

Inaccurate Facts Regarding X1Law
X1Law requires additional time to flesh out all of the inaccuracies alleged in the Response.
However, X1Law briefly points out that it did not “change the claims” or provide new information
or attempt to bamboozle the Claims Administrator. X1Law contacted the Claims administrator
and was discussing these very issues, which were not clear, in July and August of 2017 as
demonstrated in the Declarations of Claims Administrator in September 2017. X1Law followed
the direction of the Claims Administrator. See Declaration of Orran L. Brown, Sr., ECF No. 84321, p. 3.
Conclusion
The Claims Administrator is not allowed to conduct multiple audits. It has other powers
to investigate fraud and take measure to protect the process but it cannot apply the Settlement
Agreement in a manner which eliminates due process rights.
Dated: March 21, 2019
Respectfully Submitted,
Patrick J. Tighe
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Movants
X1LAW, P.A.f/k/a Patrick J. Tighe, P.A.
721 US Highway 1, Ste 121
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Phone: 561-537-3319
Fax: 561-537-7193
Pat@X1LAW.com
Florida Bar No. 568155

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Movants
MGS LAW, P.A.
601 Heritage Drive, Suite 141
Jupiter, FL 33458
Phone: 561-620-5460
michael@mgs2law.com
Florida Bar No. 0783471
s/ Michael St. Jacques
Michael G. St. Jacques, II

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 21, 2019, the foregoing document was electronically filed
with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania via the Court’s
CM/ECF system, and that the filing is available for downloading and viewing from the electronic
court filing system by counsel for all parties.

Page 4 of 5

 Case 2:12-md-02323-AB Document 10509 Filed 03/21/19 Page 5 of 5

MGS LAW, P.A.
s/ Michael St. Jacques
MICHAEL G. ST. JACQUES, II

Page 5 of 5