NCAA Concussion Settlement: What the Monitoring Program Provides

The NCAA student-athlete concussion litigation is a federal multidistrict proceeding about head injuries in college sports, consolidated as MDL No. 2492 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Manish S. Shah. A class settlement approved on August 19, 2019 established a medical monitoring program funded with $70 million; it is not a fund that pays damages. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation counted 549 actions pending as of October 1, 2026, against 601 filed in total, and the settlement did not resolve the individual personal injury claims those actions contain.

What the settlement provides

The Second Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement obliges the NCAA to pay $70,000,000, described as an “ALL-IN” amount covering the medical monitoring program, notice and administration, the Medical Science Committee, attorneys’ fees and service awards (Section IV(A)(1)(a) and (b)). Payment is staged: $5 million within 14 days after preliminary approval, $25 million within 30 days after the effective date, and $20 million in each of the eleventh and twenty-first years after it (Section IV(A)(1)(d) and (e)). No permitted disbursement is a payment to a class member for an injury.

Judge John Z. Lee entered the amended final order and judgment on August 19, 2019, certifying a settlement class and two subclasses under Rule 23(b)(2), approving the settlement, and overruling 22 objections.

Who is in the settlement class

The order defines the class as “All Persons who played an NCAA-sanctioned sport at an NCAA member institution on or prior to July 15, 2016.” It certifies a contact sport subclass and a non-contact sport subclass with the same cutoff. The order excludes the NCAA and its officers and directors, class counsel, the special master, and the judges who presided over the litigation.

The class covers any NCAA-sanctioned sport. The claims remaining in the MDL are narrower: the 2024 opinion describes them as proposed classes of former football players at individual member institutions. The mass tort section explains how coordinated claims are organized.

How the medical monitoring program works

Participation is voluntary. A class member completes a Screening Questionnaire, online or on paper, and the responses are scored electronically against criteria set by a Medical Science Committee (Sections IV(B)(4)(a) to (e)). A member whose responses meet the criteria becomes a “Qualifying Class Member”; the administrator must notify that person within 30 days and provide scheduling instructions (Section IV(B)(4)(i)).

The agreement limits frequency: the questionnaire once every five years until age 50, then once every two years through the monitoring period. A class member may qualify for up to two evaluations; a third requires a showing of significant symptoms or loss of function and a special master determination after consulting the committee (Sections IV(B)(4)(g) and (h)).

Evaluations take place at no fewer than 33 locations. A qualifying class member who lives more than 100 miles from the nearest one may claim mileage reimbursement or propose an alternative provider, subject to approval (Section IV(B)(5)(a)). The evaluating physician sends results to the class member, or to a physician at the member’s direction, within 60 days (Section IV(B)(5)(d)). The program begins 90 days after the effective date (Section IV(B)(2)); the monitoring period runs 50 years from the effective date (Section II(X)).

The agreement does not list specific tests. It says the committee will agree on the scope of the evaluations, which are “designed to assess symptoms related to persistent post-concussion syndrome, as well as cognitive, mood, behavioral, and motor problems which may be associated with mid- to late-life onset diseases, such as CTE and related disorders” (Section IV(B)(5)(c)). It also states that “Medical Monitoring does not mean rendering medical care” (Section II(V)).

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the documents reviewed here: the $70 million amount and payment schedule; the class definition and subclasses; the screening process, two-evaluation limit and 50-year period; the release of medical monitoring and class-wide claims; the preservation of individual injury claims; final approval on August 19, 2019; and 549 actions pending on October 1, 2026.

Alleged, or still undecided: whether playing college football caused any former player’s neurological condition, and whether the NCAA is liable to any individual plaintiff. The 2024 opinion decided a procedural question about class certification. Neither it nor the settlement order contains a causation or liability finding against the NCAA.

What the release covers, and what it leaves open

The released claims include medical monitoring claims and class-wide claims, including “requests for class treatment of issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).” The release does not include individual personal or bodily injury claims, personal injury class claims for players of a single sport at a single school, or class claims unrelated to concussions or medical monitoring.

The order dismissed the released claims with prejudice while providing that the individual personal injury claims of the representatives and plaintiffs “shall not be dismissed.” Class members may not bring medical monitoring or class-wide injury claims elsewhere, but may pursue their own injury claims individually.

That structure explains the size of the docket. The 2024 opinion records that four sample cases were selected in November 2016 to test the single sport, single school cases, that non-sample cases were and remained stayed, and that there were then over 580 putative class actions.

Where the litigation stands now

In late 2022 the plaintiffs dropped their Rule 23(b)(3) damages class request and sought leave to certify five issues under Rule 23(c)(4). Judge Shah denied that request on March 22, 2024. He held that the settlement released the right to seek issue-only certification, because the release covers requests for class treatment of issues and the carveout applies only to a single sport, single school class. Alternatively, he held that the issues could not be certified: the evidence would vary across a class period running from 1958 to 2010, and individualized standing determinations would predominate.

The panel’s October 1, 2026 report lists 549 actions pending against 601 filed in total, which indicates that most consolidated cases remained open. The documents reviewed contain no trial verdict and no announced settlement of the individual injury claims. How multidistrict litigation works sets out how this structure differs from an ordinary class action.

Key dates

• July 15, 2016: cutoff date in the settlement class definition (final order, ECF 558).
• 2016: the court granted preliminary approval; the parties selected four sample cases in November (2024 opinion, ECF 454).
• August 19, 2019: amended final order and judgment approving the second amended settlement, after a memorandum opinion dated August 12 (ECF 558).
• Effective date plus 90 days: the medical monitoring program begins (agreement, Section IV(B)(2)).
• Fifty years from the effective date: the monitoring period ends (agreement, Section II(X)).
• March 22, 2024: Judge Shah denies leave to seek Rule 23(c)(4) issue certification (ECF 454).
• October 1, 2026: the panel reports 549 actions pending of 601 filed (JPML statistics report).

What this does not establish

The record does not establish that college football or any other NCAA sport caused a former athlete’s condition, or that the NCAA was negligent or liable to any plaintiff. The settlement is not a compensation program: the $70 million funds screening, evaluations, administration and fees, and the agreement sets no per-person payment. The documents do not state how many class members have completed a Screening Questionnaire or received an evaluation. Anyone considering a claim should check the current docket and the official settlement program information rather than rely on a summary. Verifying a settlement notice describes how to check an official notice against the court record.

Frequently asked questions

Do class members receive a cash payment from the settlement?

No. The settlement funds a medical monitoring program, notice and administration, the Medical Science Committee, attorneys’ fees and service awards. It creates no damages fund and lists no payment to class members for injuries. Individual personal injury claims were preserved and are pursued separately.

Who can take part in the medical monitoring program?

The class covers all persons who played an NCAA-sanctioned sport at an NCAA member institution on or prior to July 15, 2016, excluding the NCAA and its officers, class counsel, the special master and the presiding judges. Participation is voluntary; a member qualifies for an evaluation only if the scored questionnaire responses meet the criteria.

What does a Medical Evaluation involve?

The agreement does not name specific tests. The Medical Science Committee sets the scope, and the evaluation is designed to assess symptoms of persistent post-concussion syndrome and cognitive, mood, behavioral and motor problems that may be associated with mid- to late-life onset conditions such as CTE. It is not medical treatment.

Did the settlement end the lawsuits against the NCAA?

It ended the medical monitoring claims and the class-wide claims the release covers, including issue classes. It did not end individual personal injury claims; the panel counted 549 actions pending on October 1, 2026, and a 2024 ruling denied an attempt to certify five issues for class-wide resolution.

Sources

1. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report, Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending” (link, accessed 2026-10-23)
2. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: “Amended Final Order and Judgment Approving the Second Amended Class Action Settlement, In re NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-09116 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2019), ECF 558” (link, accessed 2026-10-23)
3. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: “Second Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, In re NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-09116 (N.D. Ill.), ECF 558-1” (link, accessed 2026-10-23)
4. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: “Memorandum Opinion and Order, In re NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-08727 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2024), ECF 454” (link, accessed 2026-10-23)

Collective Claim publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.