# Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Kennedy Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0338 **Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Kennedy, No. 25-0338, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Must a defendant seeking summary judgment on limitations in a latent-injury case show that a doctor told the plaintiffs of a "likely" causal link, or can a family's knowledge, medical notes and a class-action opt-out show the claim accrued more than two years before suit?** Practice areas: personal injury, civil procedure ## Key issues - Must a defendant seeking summary judgment on limitations in a latent-injury case show that a doctor told the plaintiffs of a "likely" causal link, or can a family's knowledge, medical notes and a class-action opt-out show the claim accrued more than two years before suit? - Did the summary-judgment record as a whole establish that, more than two years before the family sued the NCAA over their father's CTE, a reasonable person would have linked his decline to college football? ## Factual History 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 (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 10, 16). 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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 19-20). 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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 21, 11). 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 (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF p. 10). ## Procedural History 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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 11, 26; Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF p. 10). 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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 12). The Supreme Court granted review on September 4, 2026. ## Issues Presented - The NCAA (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 14): (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 (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 12, 21): 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. ## Standard(s) of Review 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 (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 21-22). ## Legal Arguments **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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 25-26). 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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner's Reply Brief), PDF p. 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 (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 21-22). **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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 26). **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 (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 21-22). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case 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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 25). The family argued the court of appeals faithfully applied *Childs* and that review is not warranted (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 10-11, 22). ## Practice Area Tags personal-injury, civil-procedure ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas); granted September 4, 2026. Oral argument: December 2, 2026. ## Amicus Involvement None noted --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0338. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.