Roger Braugh, Sr. played NCAA football from 1960 to 1962 and died decades later, and after his death a post-mortem evaluation diagnosed chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and Lewy-body disease, on which his adult children later sued the NCAA.¹ The NCAA says the family saw his cognitive decline for decades, that in 1998 he told his brother he "knew that there would be some brain damage" from football, and that in 2014 his daughter Jane, a personal-injury lawyer, reported head trauma from college football in a neuropsychiatric intake form.² The NCAA adds that about five years before suit Jane asked doctors about a "diagnostic tool or consultation for possible CTE," that a psychiatrist wrote in his record that he "may have progressive CTE," and that the family knew of and opted out of a 2017 class-action settlement alleging the same injuries.³ The family says no doctor ever advised that his impairment was likely caused by CTE or football and that doctors used general terms such as dementia and Parkinson's.⁴

The adult children sued the NCAA for survival and wrongful death in June 2020, the NCAA moved for summary judgment on limitations without conceding liability or causation, and County Court at Law No. 5 of Dallas County granted it and rendered a take-nothing judgment.¹ The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas), in an opinion by Justice Breedlove on March 25, 2025, reversed, holding summary judgment unavailable because there was no evidence a doctor told the family of a "likely" causal link between his symptoms and football.² The Supreme Court granted review on September 4, 2026.

Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas); granted September 4, 2026. Oral argument: December 2, 2026.

• The NCAA:¹ (1) whether the court of appeals improperly precluded summary judgment on the discovery rule by requiring proof that a doctor advised of a "likely" link; and (2) whether the summary-judgment record as a whole shows a reasonable person would have linked the symptoms to football more than two years before suit.
• The family:² that under Childs v. Haussecker the NCAA had to conclusively establish objective verification, more than two years before suit, that his disease was likely caused by football, which it did not.

A defendant seeking summary judgment on limitations bears the burden to conclusively negate the discovery rule, and the family argues evidence that is legally insufficient does not become conclusive by being piled together.¹

What the discovery rule requires in a latent-injury case.

The NCAA (Petitioner): Under Childs, a claim accrues when a plaintiff has information that would lead a reasonable person to conclude he likely suffers from a wrong-caused illness, and accrual is not tolled because the plaintiff lacks a confirmed diagnosis or certainty about cause, so the court of appeals' rule requiring a doctor's causation pronouncement tells plaintiffs to wait for diagnostic certainty.¹ In reply, the NCAA says Childs forbids a confirmed-diagnosis requirement and that the family's fallback arguments distort Childs and conflate accrual with the merits.²

The family (Respondents): The Childs roadmap requires conclusive proof of objective verification that the disease was likely football-related; mere suspicion, a class-action opt-out notice, or a doctor's note about a possibility of CTE that was never communicated to the family is legally insufficient.³

Whether the whole record shows accrual.

The NCAA (Petitioner): The record spanning nearly sixty years, including the family's observations, Roger's own linking of football to his decline, medical records and the 2017 settlement, shows the family knew or had reason to know of a claim no later than early 2017, more than three years before suit, and the court of appeals wrongly assessed each piece in isolation.⁴

The family (Respondents): The court of appeals considered each piece of evidence in the context of the entire record and correctly concluded the NCAA did not meet its burden.⁵

The NCAA argued the court of appeals' holding conflicts with this Court's discovery-rule jurisprudence, offers a path to evade limitations and excuses stale claims.¹ The family argued the court of appeals faithfully applied Childs and that review is not warranted.²

None noted