Chicago-Kent College of Law Assistant Clinical Professor William Reynolds is representing former NFL player Ka’lial Glaud in a dispute over denied neurocognitive disability benefits. Reynolds, together with students from the law school’s Employee Benefits Claims Clinic, is challenging the NFL Player Disability and Survivor Benefit Plan’s decision to deny Glaud’s claim.
Glaud, who played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Dallas Cowboys, attributes his ongoing neurological issues to multiple concussions sustained during his career. “Because of his concussions, he’s had really persistent migraine headaches, neurocognitive issues, and other debilitating issues, all of which...are related to his traumatic brain injury,” Reynolds said.
Although Glaud’s initial “Line of Duty” claim was approved—acknowledging that he was injured while performing job functions—his application for more comprehensive neurocognitive benefits was denied. Reynolds criticized the process by which Glaud was evaluated: “Glaud lives in New Jersey,” Reynolds said. “When they examined him for NC benefits, they first flew him to Washington, D.C., and then on appeal, they flew him down to Atlanta. These are supposed to be independent doctors—they can’t find someone within driving distance?”
Multiple doctors found credible evidence of neurological impairment, but plan-appointed “MAP” doctors ultimately ruled against Glaud based on a single disputed test result. “Glaud was deemed to have failed one of five validity test measures,” Reynolds explained. “One marker throughout 10 years of his claim being administered, as a borderline level. The final decision was that that one marker invalidated the entire collection of examinations. It’s contrary to how these tests are generally administered and scored, and goes against their own prior findings.”
The legal framework governing such claims is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which sets a high bar for overturning benefit denials. As Reynolds noted: “A federal judge generally gives deference to an administrative law judge’s findings and ruling because that judge is the expert on their agency’s rules, procedures, and the subject matter at issue. So, unless the decision was unreasonable, the federal court is generally not going to overturn the agency decision.”
Reynolds added: “A judge is not really decided whether or not Glaud is disabled. The judge is going to decide whether or not the decision of the plan administrator is reasonable or not, which is a different standard and higher bar to clear. The plan can be wrong, but not ‘unreasonable.’”
In response to repeated denials under what he describes as questionable procedures, Reynolds is seeking removal of certain MAP doctors from their roles as plan fiduciaries. “We have a legal basis for it,” he said. “The NFL is unilaterally incorporating…these rules and procedures that undermine the benefits that were collectively bargained, and the decisions seem to be coming out on the same side every single time, which is on the plan side.”
Reynolds specializes in ERISA-related advocacy through his clinic at Chicago-Kent College of Law and emphasizes exposing students to this complex area of law. “There are not a lot of attorneys on the plaintiff side litigating individual claims,” he said. “This area just happens to be a little bit niche, and it can scare lawyers off because there are a lot of compliance issues and they’re complicated. It will benefit society to have more lawyers exposed to this type of stuff. If one or two of my students end up going into this type of practice, I’ll feel like I did the right thing.”
He also drew comparisons between Glaud’s case and other high-profile incidents involving NFL players’ health benefits disputes.
Glaud’s legal team also includes Richard Frankel from Bross & Frankel in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Photo: William Reynolds [provided]