Today's post will continue the previous discussion of how Eric Shelton, a former running back with the Carolina Panthers, has filed a lawsuit in federal court over the National Football League's withholding of benefits for injuries he sustained in a helmet-to-helmet collision. Shelton believes his lawsuit will reveal that the league's current stance regarding helmet-to-helmet hits and its treatment of players who have suffered serious head, neck, back and spine injuries because of such hits are entirely inconsistent.

Please see "Former NFL Running Back Seeking Withheld Benefits - I" on our workers' compensation blog for more information.

Post continued ...

In awarding Shelton, now 27, benefits for a "degenerative" injury rather than an immediate, permanent injury, the NFL disability panel effectively cut in half the roughly $220,000 a year in disability benefits he would have otherwise received.

The disability panel's rationale for denying Shelton the maximum level of benefits was simple. Since Shelton had worked at a Walgreens pharmacy for a brief period of time shortly after his injury, they found his disability could not have occurred with 6 months or a year - one of the primary criteria for awarding maximum benefits under the NFL's disability plan.

"The lawsuit requests that Mr. Shelton be placed in the highest category, which in part applies where a player is unable to work immediately following his NFL career," said Douglas Ell, the head attorney for the NFL's disability plan. "Mr. Shelton worked at a pharmacy until April 2009."

In regard to his working at a pharmacy, Shelton's complaint indicates that this brief and ultimately unsuccessful stint demonstrated that his injuries left him unable to work and therefore permanently disabled.

Cy Smith, Shelton's attorney, has expressed his opinion that the NFL's denial of maximum benefits for players who have suffered serious injuries in helmet-to-helmet collisions is particularly hypocritical in light of the league's recent crack down on these types of hits.

"Talk is cheap - it's easy to put out posters and public-service announcements and levy fines for hits that occur on Sundays, but when a player is seriously injured on those hits, the league says something completely different," said Smith "The plan's position that this must be degenerative is in sharp contrast to how dangerous these hits are. The mechanism of injury here is what they've said 1,000 times is the most dangerous."

Stay tuned for future developments from our San Diego workers' compensation blog ...

You should strongly consider seeking the necessary medical treatment if you have suffered any type of neck, back and spine injury - regardless of your employment setting.

This post was for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as legal or medical advice.

Related Resources:

Ex-Player Is Suing Over Pay for Injury (The New York Times)