Jamie Cudmore is suing Clermont

[TRF_Olyy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...tch-blows-head-wife-Jen-fighting-justice.html

 

[Peat]

Good.

 

[munstermuffin]

Have no time for Cudmore but respect his fight. He's first of hopefully many in french club game that need to speak out. The mentality there has crept to being win at all costs regardless of player welfare.
Lets not forget the famous incident with Toulouse

 

[Every Time Ref]

Good luck to him. Also thoroughly dislike him, but if even half of what he alleges is true he's 100% in the right

 

[welshglory]

The French pro player association should join forces. Fritz went through similar things as mm says. I bet there's tonnes of other cases like these, especially at Pro d2 level.

 

[smartcooky]

[TEXTAREA]"Cudmore was examined by Clermont’s doctors, failed the HIA test but was somehow allowed to return to action."[/TEXTAREA]

Unfortunately, this sort of thing has been going on in French Club rugby for some time, the most glaring case being the Florian Fritz affair a couple of seasons back. I am disgusted that Guy Noves was never brought to book for his negligent actions in sending Fritz back out there when it was so obvious that he was severely concussed.

Incidents like those involving Fritz and Cudmore graphically illustrate where the priorities of Top 14 team owners and coaches lie; winning first, player welfare second. IMO, this is just another aspect of the way that players in that competition are treated like disposable commodities. They are flogged endlessly for nearly 10 months of the year, forced to continue playing while carrying injuries, then if injury upon injury finally takes its inevitable toll in the form of a long term lay-off, the owner just pulls out the chequebook and buys another player to replace him. Its an absolute disgrace and it shouldn't be allowed.

A "win at all costs" attitude is fine, but when one of those costs is the the heath and well being of players, that crosses the line into derelict and unacceptable attitude. If the incurious numpties running French rugby clubs are not prepared to change their nonchalant attitude to player welfare, then its time WR (using the courts if necessary) changed it for them. First step would be to remove team doctors from the decision-making process, and use independent doctors or paramedics for the in-game HIA & decision making process.

 

[Groundhog]

The Fritz example was pretty widely publicized but I hoped everyone's acts had been cleared up since. No idea if this is an issue in every league, as the two most notable examples are now in France, but a doctor who allows a player with a head injury back onto the field needs to be held accountable. They have a duty of care here, and need to be the voice of reason in these situations. I would also add that coaches who pressure players they know to be concussed back into the game are filth with no integrity and should get out of the game. Players could die, and that's on the club not the player.
If this is what it takes to hold clubs accountable then more power to Cudmore.

 

[Which Tyler]

For possibly the first time, I fully approve of a thing Jamie Cudmore is doing.

 

[ALJ]

So we've now got test cases of varying types in England (Cillian Willis) and France.

Agree this has to got be looked at but I think these are dangerous times for rugby that could have ramifications at all levels.

If I was medical professional at lower league level, there's no way I'd be making decisions on players' fitness to continue if there's a chance I'll be sued for getting it wrong.

 

[Which Tyler]

As a healthcare professional in the lower leagues... meh, I get sued if I get it wrong anyway. All I can do is to follow best practice at the time anyway. Sometimes this is to RFU standards, sometimes beyond (I was doing a basic-level return to play protocol before they came in TBH, whilst using the mandatory stand-down period as a minimum -because I happened to have been aware of the major research - luck of the draw in having read the right article at the right time).

I'm in a better position, though less knowledgeable, than the Elite guys, as my patients have mortgages that depend on them being healthy, not just playing this weekend, wives tend to be in my side, and coaches are less influential (once I've got my hands on the patient).

 

[ALJ]

As a healthcare professional in the lower leagues... meh, I get sued if I get it wrong anyway. All I can do is to follow best practice at the time anyway. Sometimes this is to RFU standards, sometimes beyond (I was doing a basic-level return to play protocol before they came in TBH, whilst using the mandatory stand-down period as a minimum -because I happened to have been aware of the major research - luck of the draw in having read the right article at the right time).

I'm in a better position, though less knowledgeable, than the Elite guys, as my patients have mortgages that depend on them being healthy, not just playing this weekend, wives tend to be in my side, and coaches are less influential (once I've got my hands on the patient).

Can't argue with any of that, makes perfect sense.

But depending on how this plays out, I can't help but think that medical professionals in the future (rather than those who are already involved) might be reticent to get involved as volunteers if they could be considered personally liable.

 

[munstermuffin]

But thing is at lower levels there is never a gamble. If your goosed your gone. Remember this case isn't about getting concussed its about being put back in to the game after failing HIA.

 

[ALJ]

But thing is at lower levels there is never a gamble. If your goosed your gone. Remember this case isn't about getting concussed its about being put back in to the game after failing HIA.

Yep, true.

But is there a potential precedent of liability in relation to injuries generally?

 

[Which Tyler]

Err.. what?
I am liable for my actions. If my actions cause harm, then I can be sued for that; either to reclaim costs (that's what insurance is for), or to be punitive (financially and professionally) if I am held to be negligent.

As far as I can tell, nothing in this situation is about the Dr, or any wrongdoing on his/her behalf. The Dr performed their duty, and diagnosed Cudmore as having concussion; the club (aka coach) then over-rules the Dr, and sent Cudmore back on the pitch.
Maybe the Dr could have fought his/her corner harder; but ultimately, unless he locked the door from the inside and barricaded the coach out, then there's not a lot more s/he could have done.

The medical difficulty comes in missing the diagnosis, giving inappropriate treatment, failure to warn about side-effects, or sods' law with unexpected or severe side-effects. None of these are at issue here (as far as I can tell)


ETA: OK, re-read the article, I'd obviously been lazy on my first reading - the Doc initially sends him to the showers; then comes back and asks him to go out on the field again - which is negligence and deserves to be sued for.

 

[ALJ]

There's another thread on this relating to the Cillian Willis case:
http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/38100-Cillian-Willis-to-sue-Sale-over-career-ending-concussion

Easier to point to that than try and re-hash all the comments as all such cases are inter-linked to some extent.

Key point being that you don't have doctors at all games at all levels - so who takes responsibility and who would be liable?

 

[Which Tyler]

No, of course not all games can have a Dr present - but they should all have an emergency first aider present - and it's their responsibility. If there's any doubt, sit them out.

Ultimately of course, it's the patient's responsibility; the trouble with concussion is that patients may be unable to consent, or to be responsible for themselves. It's the first-aiders duty to make that decision.
Ref's are also (I believe) responsible for ensuring that anyone on the pitch is competent to be there. Now I would never expect them to overule a health professional; but in the absence of one; then they're also (partly) responsible.

 

[smartcooky]

There are a couple of points.....

The medical staff can only be in trouble if they get it wrong in one sense, and that is returning to the field a player who is concussed by not following the protocols exactly. If the medical staff follow the protocols and the player shows no clinical signs of concussion then that has no legal consequences for them, and while dragging a player who is not concussed (playing it safe), also does not carry legal consequences, it does have the potential to have consequences for the team. They could well be down to 14 players if a player is dragged for concussion late in a game, and that brings me to the second point.

From a Law 3 perspective, WR need to change the Laws so that concussion injuries are dealt with in a similar way to how they treat a blood injury, as a free replacement (not one of the 8 allowed). A player dragged for HIA ought to be able to be replaced with a previously tactically substituted player, and subsequently, if the player fails the HIA, the replacement player ought to be allowed to remain on the field. In competitions and at levels where, say, 12 rolling substitutions are used, a player dragged for or failing an HIA should not count as one of the 12.

I don't know how you do your assessments up north, but in SR and NPC, the sideline medical staff have a portable. self contained real time concussion monitor that is connected directly into all the feeds used by the SkyTV Directors Box/Outside Broadcast van.

It has the capability of rewinding and playing back any feed from any angle. The protocol here is that if the medical staff see on that video a player showing any sign of concussion after a head knock, i.e. the player loses unconsciousness, is groggy, or staggering, they will have that player dragged and the likelihood is that they will not return, even if they pass the HIA. Sometimes you will see the referee stop the game and order a player from the field for an HIA. This happens when the medical staff have spotted something and have contacted the TMO to tell the referee to remove the player.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I think that video technology is only in the aviva premiership and only from this season, there was an article about it last month.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Err.. what?
I am liable for my actions. If my actions cause harm, then I can be sued for that; either to reclaim costs (that's what insurance is for), or to be punitive (financially and professionally) if I am held to be negligent.

As far as I can tell, nothing in this situation is about the Dr, or any wrongdoing on his/her behalf. The Dr performed their duty, and diagnosed Cudmore as having concussion; the club (aka coach) then over-rules the Dr, and sent Cudmore back on the pitch.
Maybe the Dr could have fought his/her corner harder; but ultimately, unless he locked the door from the inside and barricaded the coach out, then there's not a lot more s/he could have done.

The medical difficulty comes in missing the diagnosis, giving inappropriate treatment, failure to warn about side-effects, or sods' law with unexpected or severe side-effects. None of these are at issue here (as far as I can tell)


ETA: OK, re-read the article, I'd obviously been lazy on my first reading - the Doc initially sends him to the showers; then comes back and asks him to go out on the field again - which is negligence and deserves to be sued for.

Re: the bold part - does a medical professional have a duty to speak out if he has been overruled?

 

[Which Tyler]

smartcooky:
1. In a rugby sense, maybe, but not quite in a medicolegal sense. Failing to make the diagnosis despite having the evidence is negligence, failure to maintain records is right up alongside negligence (alleged in the Cudmore article) etc etc.

2. Agreed entirely

3. New to the Prem ( on trial) this year IIRC, certainly not relevant below elite level
ETA, thread here: http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/38154-New-concussion-monitoring-system

Every Time Ref:
Dunno, but it'll be complicated, but probably not. Basically his/her recourse would be to resign.
Bloodgate Dr.s had a duty to not cut Williams, but not to whistle-blow