Roger S. Braugh, Sr. played college football in the early 1960s. Decades later, his family observed his cognitive decline and, at various points over many years, connected it (at least tentatively) to his football career: the family discussed "possible CTE" and a doctor's note referenced football as early as 2015, and in 2017 the family knew about and opted out of a class-action settlement between former college athletes and the NCAA alleging the same kind of neurodegenerative injury from football-related head trauma. Braugh's children did not sue the NCAA until 2020, after Braugh's death and a post-mortem CTE diagnosis.
The NCAA moved for summary judgment on limitations without conceding liability or causation, arguing the family's claims accrued more than two years before they sued. The family invoked the discovery rule, contending the claims didn't accrue until the post-mortem CTE diagnosis. The trial court (Dallas County Court at Law No. 5) granted the NCAA summary judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment. The Fifth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that summary judgment on the discovery rule is unavailable absent evidence that a doctor told the family of a "likely" causal link between Braugh's symptoms and his football career -- and remanded. The Supreme Court granted the NCAA's petition for review, with oral argument set for December 2, 2026.
Petitioner (NCAA): The Court's discovery-rule precedent has never required a doctor's diagnosis or "medical blessing" before a claim accrues -- a claim accrues once a plaintiff knows, or through reasonable diligence should know, the facts giving rise to it, regardless of whether the precise medical cause is confirmed. The court of appeals' doctor's-statement requirement conflicts with that precedent, provides a roadmap for any latent-injury plaintiff to indefinitely delay suit by simply not seeking a formal diagnosis, and improperly evaluated the summary-judgment evidence piecemeal rather than holistically. On this record, the family had multiple independent red flags -- a doctor's note referencing "possible CTE," the family's own suspicions, and the class-action opt-out -- all more than two years before they sued, which conclusively establishes the claims are time-barred as a matter of law.
Respondents (Braugh family): To negate the discovery rule at summary judgment, the NCAA had to conclusively establish that the family received objective verification -- not mere suspicion or surmise -- that Roger's symptoms were likely caused by football, and the court of appeals never limited that objective-verification requirement to a doctor's diagnosis specifically. None of the individual pieces of evidence the NCAA relies on (a 1998 conversation, a 2014-15 medical intake record, the 2017 class-action opt-out) rises to that level individually, and stacking several inconclusive pieces of evidence together doesn't produce conclusive proof either.
Yes. The petition frames this as an important, recurring question for every latent-injury claim in Texas -- when a plaintiff knows enough to sue -- and argues the court of appeals' holding conflicts with the Court's own discovery-rule jurisprudence and threatens to "flood Texas courts with stale claims" by giving future plaintiffs a template for evading limitations.
personal-injury, civil-procedure
Petition for Review (Tex. R. App. P. 53.1); granted; set for oral argument December 2, 2026. Not yet decided.
None
Every document below opens on the official Texas courts site (search.txcourts.gov) — nothing is hosted here.