Bradley v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

• Decision Date: 29 May 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16-346 (RBW)
• Citation: 464 F.Supp.3d 273
• Parties: Jennifer BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

464 F.Supp.3d 273

Jennifer BRADLEY, Plaintiff,

v.NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-346 (RBW)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed May 29, 2020

Barry J. Nace, Matthew Andrew Nace, Paulson & Nace, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Danny C. Onorato, Joseph Alfonso Gonzalez, Schertler & Onorato, Francesca Morency, William F. Stute, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Daniel C. Costello, Michelle R. Mitchell, Wharton, Levin, Ehrmantraut & Klein, P.A., Annapolis, MD, for Defendant Patriot League.

Christine Frazier Hein, Washington, DC, John J. Murphy, III, Walker, Murphy & Nelson, LLP, Rockville, MD, for Defendant American University.

H. Kenneth Armstrong, Robert Collins Maynard, Armstrong, Donohue, Ceppos, Vaughan & Rhoades, Chartered, Rockville, MD, for Defendants Maryland Sports Medicine Center, David L. Higgins.

Jeremy Allen Haugh, Roberto Cesar Martens, Jr., U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant United States of America.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge

The plaintiff, Jennifer Bradley, brings this civil action against the defendants, American University (the "University"), the Maryland Sports Medicine Center (the "Medicine Center"), David L. Higgins, M.D. P.C. (the "Higgins Practice"), and David L. Higgins, M.D. ("Dr. Higgins") (collectively, the "University defendants"), the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the "NCAA"), and the United States of America (the "Government"), asserting common law claims of negligence against the NCAA and the University, negligent infliction of emotional distress against the Government, and medical malpractice against the University defendants and the Government. See Notice of Removal of a Civil Action ("Removal Notice"), Exhibit ("Ex.") 5 (Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.")) ¶¶ 137–46, 157–73, 195–205. Currently pending before the Court are (1) Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association's Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Negligence ("NCAA's Mot." or the "NCAA's motion for summary judgment"); (2) Defendant United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Gov't's Mot." or the "Government's motion for summary judgment"); (3) Defendants American University, Maryland Sports Medicine Center, David L. Higgins, M.D., and David L. Higgins, M.D., P.C.’s Motion for Summary Judgment ("Univ. Defs.’ Summ. J. Mot." or the "University defendants’ motion for summary judgment"); (4) the Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant USA's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Pertaining to Affirmative Defenses ("Pl.’s Gov't Mot." or the "plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the Government"); (5) the Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant NCAA's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Pertaining to Defendant NCAA's Affirmative Defenses ("Pl.’s NCAA Mot." or the "plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the NCAA"); (6) the Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant[s] American University, Maryland Sports Medicine Center, David L. Higgins, M.D., and David L. Higgins, M.D., P.C.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Pl.’s Univ. Defs. Mot." or the "plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to the University defendants"); and (7) Motion of Defendants Maryland Sports Medicine Center, David L. Higgins, M.D., and David L. Higgins, M.D., P.C., and American University to Modify Scheduling Order and Supplement Defendants’ Expert Designation ("Univ. Defs.’ Mot. to Modify" or the "University defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order"). Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions,¹ the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant both the NCAA's and the University defendants’ motions for summary judgment, deny as moot the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the NCAA and the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to the University defendants, deny the Government's motion for summary judgment, grant in part and deny in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the Government, and deny as moot the University defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order.²

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed, except where otherwise noted by the Court. During the relevant time period, the plaintiff "was a [twenty]-year[-]old college student in her junior year at [the] University and a member of the [U]niversity's field hockey team." Pl.’s Gov't Facts ¶ 54. On July 25, 2011, prior to the 2011 field hockey season, the plaintiff signed the Acknowledgement of Risk form, which states the following:

My signature below indicates that I am aware of the risks of injury inherent in athletic activities and that such risks may include death, paralysis, and other serious permanent bodily injury. I am willing to assume responsibility for any and all such risks of injury while participating in intercollegiate athletics at the University.

I (including my parents, legal guardians, and legal representatives) hereby agree to indemnify, defend[,] and hold harmless the University and its employees, officers, [and] agents from any claims, demands, or suites for damages which may arise from my participation in the University's Intercollegiate Athletic Program, or from any treatment, medical, or otherwise provided to me by the University's Sports Medicine staff. Further, I absolve, indemnify, defend[,] and hold harmless American University from any breach of these presentations.

I understand my obligations as set forth in this document[ ] and agree to meet these obligations as a condition of my participation.

Univ. Defs.’ Opp'n, Ex. 1 (2011–2012 Acknowledgement of Risk) at 15111.

"On September 23, 2011, [the] [p]laintiff allegedly suffered a concussion resulting from a collision during ... a field hockey game ..., as a member of [the] [University's] ... field hockey team." Pl.’s NCAA Facts ¶ 12; see also NCAA's Mot., Ex. A (Deposition of Jennifer Bradley ("Bradley Dep.")) 41:13–16. As a result of the plaintiff's purported concussion-like symptoms, the University's field hockey team's trainer, Jenna Earls, scheduled "an appointment for [the] [p]laintiff to be evaluated by the team physician," Pl.’s Univ. Defs. Facts ¶ 9; see also NCAA's Mot., Ex. A (Bradley Dep.) 62:11–15, and on October 5, 2011, "Dr. Aaron Williams[,] the assistant [ ] University team physician and Uniformed Services University Sports Medicine Fellow, examined the [p]laintiff in the [ ] University[’s] training room," Pl.’s Gov't Facts ¶ 71; see also NCAA's Mot., Ex. A (Bradley Dep.) 63:18–64:6. According to Earls, she "verbally told [Dr. Williams] [that the plaintiff experienced] a hit to the head[.]" Gov't's Mot., Ex. 13 (Deposition of Jenna Earls ("Earls Dep.")) 121:22–25. Based upon his examination, Dr. Williams, who "did not believe these symptoms were consistent with a concussion because of the lack of a mechanism,"³ nevertheless "held the [p]laintiff out of play [for two days]," and instead "diagnosed the [p]laintiff as having ethmoid sinusitis." Pl.’s Gov't Facts ¶ 74; see also Gov't's Mot., Ex. 8 (Deposition of Aaron Williams ("Williams Dep.")) 136:10–14. "Over the following months, [the] [p]laintiff continued to participate in field hockey practices and games, sitting out intermittently." Pl.’s NCAA Facts ¶ 33; see also NCAA's Mot., Ex. A (Bradley Dep.) 86:21–87:6. On February 3, 2012, the plaintiff was treated by Dr. Puneet Singh, who concluded that the plaintiff "may have sustained some form of an acceleration/deceleration head injury while playing field hockey that is causing her to have symptoms [consistent with] a post-concussive syndrome." Pl.’s Gov't Facts ¶ 91 (internal citations omitted); see also Gov't's Mot., Ex. 22 (Medical Record from Dr. Puneet Singh, D.O. (Feb. 3, 2012)) at 10068.

Between August and October 2014, the plaintiff "filed several actions in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ("Superior Court"), which were consolidated against the [NCAA], the Patriot League, [the] University, the [ ] Medicine Center, [the Higgins Practice], [Dr. Higgins], and Aaron Williams[ ] [ ]." In March 2015, the Government, pursuant to the Westfall Act, substituted itself for Dr. Williams as a defendant and removed the consolidated case to this Court. Thereafter, in December 2015, this Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the Government because the "the plaintiff concede[d] that she [was] still pursuing her administrative remedies," which precluded her at that time from bringing suit against the Government. This Court also concluded that it "no longer ha[d] jurisdiction over [the] matter following the dismissal of the [Government]" and remanded the case to the Superior Court.

After the case was remanded to the Superior Court, the plaintiff moved both to amend her Complaint and to remove the case back to this Court, a motion the Superior Court granted only with respect to the plaintiff's request to amend her Complaint. On February 23, 2016, the plaintiff amended her Complaint, and on the following day, removed this case back to this Court.

Bradley v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (Bradley I ), 249 F. Supp. 3d 149, 157 (D.D.C. 2017) (Walton, J.) (internal citations omitted) (first, second, third, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth alterations in original).⁴ In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiff alleges (1) a negligence claim against the NCAA ("Count I"), see Removal Notice, Ex. 5 (Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 137–46; (2) a gross negligence claim against the NCAA ("Count II"), see id., Ex. 5 (Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 147–56; (3) a negligence claim against the Patriot League and the University ("Count III"), see id., Ex. 5 (Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 157–68; (4) a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against all defendants ("Count IV"), see id., Ex. 5 (Am....