News Zantuck given green light to pursue damages

[RFCGloryJC]

Who was coach at the time?
The Giesch?
Maybe Greggy Miller was at the club too.
Hate to see The Giesch out of pocket.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

1) Only 2 weeks?

2) You aren't a paid employee of the club - or are you??

3) Who thinks of the poor wall? It's probably got a permanent dent in it now.

I'm Dimma

 

[Daka]

I have no problems with him suing Richmond yeah it sucks we try to defend our club, & docs.

Let court decide if he deserves compensation, he deserves it, if he doesn't, he doesn't.

What I will say of on it though it wasn't that long ago Docs used to send players back on-field with concussions so a lot of things have changed so it wouldn't surprise me if docs did push the boundaries to make injured players play because of important games.

 

[RFCGloryJC]

zantuck playing his grand final against us

Everyone's lawsuit grand final.
The vendetta continues.

 

[Groupie_]

How much $$$ could this cost the club?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

dunno but cant remember seeing him get knocked out while wearing the yellow sash

he might have to sue the red sash mob or boxing, oh thats right he cant sue boxing cos he willingly signed up to have his head caved in

 

[tigs2010]

dunno but cant remember seeing him get knocked out while wearing the yellow sash

he might have to sue the red sash mob or boxing, oh thats right he cant sue boxing cos he willingly signed up to have his head caved in

Don’t think this guy was a boxer?

 

[RFCGloryJC]

Just saw.
The Giesch left Tigerland at the end of 1999.
Ty can't sue The Giesch.

 

[Groupie_]

Don’t think this guy was a boxer?

played afl for 4 years and then played local footy for way longer

is there any footage or evidence of his concussion in the afl , if not then case closed

 

[Groupie_]

Just saw.
The Giesch left Tigerland at the end of 1999.
Ty can't sue The Giesch.
View attachment 1450660

would have morphed into the gooch after ty was done with him

 

[Groupie_]

he should actually sue the afl not richmond

where was their concussion rule back in the early noughties ?

 

[RFCGloryJC]

If it turns sour, Ty would be bankrupted, because he must pay costs.
He agreed, legally, to play footy knowing all the physical risks it incurs.
No club or AFL had a concussion protocol, based on the current medical advice at the time.
AFL is a contact sport, played in the main, without helmets unlike NFL.

 

[Roksman]

Hopefully this is the beginning and more players come out and do the same.

Nothing will be sweeter than a class action to bring down the AFL. They have destroyed the game and their corruption is getting out of hand.

#boycottAFL

 

[SunshineBoy]

Hopefully this is the beginning and more players come out and do the same.

Nothing will be sweeter than a class action to bring down the AFL. They have destroyed the game and their corruption is getting out of hand.

#boycottAFL

I’m with this

 

[Phar Ace]

I have no problems with him suing Richmond yeah it sucks we try to defend our club, & docs.

Let court decide if he deserves compensation, he deserves it, if he doesn't, he doesn't.

What I will say of on it though it wasn't that long ago Docs used to send players back on-field with concussions so a lot of things have changed so it wouldn't surprise me if docs did push the boundaries to make injured players play because of important games.

Excellent post David. So many making comment without much knowledge about the intricacies. There is footage of every senior game he played, both proponent and defendant has access to this. No doubt there have been previous Statements of Claim. Wonder what Worker's Comp claims have been made thus far - sound like this is a civil case which might mean perhaps his Worker's Comp claim failed..... There is likely a significant paper trail.

If he is entitled, in the eyes of of the Court, then so be it. Same brain injury as Tucky if I recall correctly. He may well need a negotiated payout to try and get some quality of life. Don't have a problem with that!

 

[richoplzbreed]

Logic tells me he shouldn't win. But when was logic a part of Australian legal proceedings. Hey Rebel Wilson won and she's a proven pathological liar. Shaun Smith sued the AFL and won despite the fact he only played 50 games for the Demons but played 200 for Werribee. If he wins this will be open season as look how many former AFL players are broke meth heads now and all will have been told to man up and keep playing. Watch all the parasites with Lionel Hutz and Dr Nick as their legal, medical team. Bet Zantuck would've copped a few concussions acting the hard man in broadie back in the day.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Sad...

 

[RFCGloryJC]

Don't want to bag Ty, because he could very well go bankrupt.
However, when you sign a playing contract at the time, you would presumably indemnify the club against litigation.
You agree to the contract.
The contract is binding.

 

[Sterge]

Don't want to bag Ty, because he could very well go bankrupt.
However, when you sign a playing contract at the time, you would presumably indemnify the club against litigation.
You agree to the contract.
The contract is binding.

The contract would be meaningless in the case of negligence by the employer, which he would be alleging happened

 

[Bojangles17]

I guess the back injury if it occurred at Richmond might be able to be proved, but then again how is it the club's fault? Players know the risk of injury before they play the game. The brain injury would be impossible to pin on Richmond if he has had head knocks at other clubs, I'd imagine it would be because of numerous head knocks not just one.

Clubs medics have a responsibility to manage the injury , was RFC dr the bloke that was later de registered , his name escapes me , think he went to geelong too

 

[Bojangles17]

How much $$$ could this cost the club?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Public liability insurance , prob 5000 excess , lawyers will drag it out , ultimately settle

 

[brahj]

If it turns sour, Ty would be bankrupted, because he must pay costs.
He agreed, legally, to play footy knowing all the physical risks it incurs.
No club or AFL had a concussion protocol, based on the current medical advice at the time.
AFL is a contact sport, played in the main, without helmets unlike NFL.

Interesting side note, NFL helmets are only used to prevent superficial head injuries and don’t do all that much, if anything, to prevent movement of the brain in the skull which is where a concussion occurs.

There have been studies done that show those type of helmets are worse in a way because you have players leading with their head due to the fact that you’re not as much at risk of a skull fracture or the like. Rates of CTE in Gridiron players back this up too.

 

[theyellowsash]

I guess the back injury if it occurred at Richmond might be able to be proved, but then again how is it the club's fault? Players know the risk of injury before they play the game. The brain injury would be impossible to pin on Richmond if he has had head knocks at other clubs, I'd imagine it would be because of numerous head knocks not just one.

Because the club had ultimate say. It could have said no, you're hurt, you're not playing.

Again, in a regular workplace, if a boss knows someone has an injury it is their responsibility to stop them from doing any work that may aggravate it, even if the employee wants to. The afl is still a workplace.

 

[Simche]

Should be an interesting case ahead. I just read the judgement in relation to the Limitation of Actions Act (It's available on Austli as one of the first judgements if you go to Victorian Supreme Court).

If anyone is interested in a bit of a summary of the case it is as follows:

The claims

To summarise to a greater degree than the media have, Zantuck's statement of claim is in relation to:

• incurring a back injury
• management of his back injury
• brain injury related to concussion

He's amended his statement of claim in March 2022 to include the brain injury.

The statement is against three defendants, the first of which is the RFC and the two others being Dr Hickey and Dr Bradshaw.

Incurring the back injury was allegedly at the 01/02 training camp where Zantuck was directed to carry a 30kg backpack, complained of soreness to Dr Bradshaw and to club officials asking to no longer carry the backpack, however that dispensation was refused. A subsequent MRI following the training camp led to a diagnosis by Dr Bradshaw of a slipped lumbar disc.

In relation to the treatment he returned to training and played the first two matches of the 2002 season before advising that he was experiencing backpain to Dr Bradshaw, whom allegedly treated with injections of local anesthetic into the lumbar spine. For the period between 2002-2004 Zantuck continued to have further cortisone or epidural injections to treat the pain (Dr Hickey takes over at this point continuing the treatment plan from Dr Bradshaw).

In respect of the concussion claim Zantuck alleges that the brain injury was incurred by the RFC's negligence, failing in their duty of care to 'properly monitoring the players for signs of ‘head knocks’, requiring examination of players who were subject to head knocks, and properly treating players with concussion symptoms by requiring the player to stop playing and not resume normal duties unless and until certified by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner as fit to resume normal duties'. It goes on to state that 'RFC had “no or no adequate system” for ensuring these steps were taken. Therefore, RFC breached its duty of care to manage concussions' at paragraph 27.

Zantuck submission in respect of delay

Zantuck basically alleges that he sought to access his medical records through Dr Hickey and went to the AFLPA in 06 or 07 but was advised he would be unsuccessful in any claim (note not legal advice).

In 2011 he required significant surgery and consequently went to see solicitors given the implications for his financial situation. Slater and Gordon advised him in 2012 that at the time they saw no prospect of success in pursuing the claim.

Between 2012 and 2017 he corresponded with Peter Jess who has advocated for him to engage his current solicitors.

In relation to the concussion claim, Zantuck states that traumatic encephalopathy syndrome has only been able to be diagnosed since 2021 so there has been no relevant delay in the claim given the manifestation of the injury and diagnosis.

In relation to the evidence

The court basically found that it does prejudice the defendants to hear the claims but on balance given that ultimately it was the responsibility of the respective doctors to keep treatment records that it would not be such that a fair trial cannot be held. It was put forward that they did not keep records of match day treatments, particularly injections, administered by the medical staff however this is no impediment to the 'course of conduct' that is being alleged and witnesses will be called (i.e. other club officials, players etc.) that may have witnessed it.

In relation to the concussion claim, the central claim is in relation to the RFC's processes, policies and systems. There are five documented occasions of concussion and more so given the allegations relate to procedure the way the club treated other relevant concussions through the period will be relevant.

RFC and Doctor submissions

Dealing first with the back injury, both Dr Bradshaw and Dr Hickey have no recollection of the number of injections alleged by Zantuck in relation to his back and Dr Hickey in particular deposes 'I do not recall giving Ty Zantuck a cortisone injection or a pre-game local anaesthetic injection. I do not believe I gave him any such injection because, other than the reference to the injection on 23 July 2004, I did not record any such administrations in my notes'.

Dr Hickey has no records in relation to concussions occurring during the 04 season (so I am assuming this then relates to management under Dr Bradshaw). I have not been able to access the Schedule which lists the 5 instances.

Overall thoughts

Whatever you thought of Ty as a player (I personally was not a fan and considered him undisciplined) it sounds like a pretty tragic set of circumstances given that he is clearly and demonstrably experiencing day to day pain and struggles to live a life most of us take for granted, which must be difficult given he has two kids.

I personally think he will struggle to make out the course of conduct treatment claim and back injury matters given the lack of evidence indicated and the conflicting evidence of two credible witnesses. I suppose it will turn on the testimony of other witnesses as called.

The CTE one will be interesting. There is clearly high quality vision of the 5 circumstances and we are all aware that procedures were pretty 'patch them up and get them back on' in those days. The treatment of other players is also highly relevant in making out negligence given the claim relates to procedures, practice, policy etc.

The interesting element that was not really touched on, but I suspect will be at trial, is the scope to which RFC is the employer and also the degree to which they are able to set practice/policy/procedure in relation to concussion. The AFL sign the collective bargaining agreement with the AFLPA so realistically the RFC will likely join them at some point given they will also likely argue negligence on behalf of the league given that they dictate what protocols are in place.

 

[theyellowsash]

Don't want to bag Ty, because he could very well go bankrupt.
However, when you sign a playing contract at the time, you would presumably indemnify the club against litigation.
You agree to the contract.
The contract is binding.

Yeah, thats not how contract law works

 

[RJK Tiger]

anyone sitting there being critical or flippant about Ty's claims are most likely being very single minded. Irrelevant of what we thought of him as a player, he has made pretty serious claims & the court has accepted it is worth hearing about. I will wait for some facts before i cast judgement on him daring to ask our club for compensation