Judge Limits ERISA Claims Against NFL Plan Doctors in Former Player’s Brain-Injury Benefits Case

A federal judge has dismissed fiduciary-duty claims against two doctors involved in denying a former NFL player’s neurocognitive disability benefits, drawing a significant legal line between physicians who influence benefit decisions and the officials who ultimately administer an employee benefit plan.

U.S. District Judge Edward S. Kiel of the District of New Jersey ruled on September 10 that medical advisory physicians Dr. William Garmoe and Dr. Silvana Riggio were not fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known as ERISA, even though their medical determination was considered “final and binding” on the medical issue referred to them.

Former NFL linebacker Ka'Lial Glaud brought the case, Glaud v. The NFL Player Disability and Survivor Benefit Plan, after the plan denied his application for neurocognitive disability benefits.

Kiel dismissed the fiduciary-duty claims against the two physicians with prejudice. Glaud’s separate claim seeking payment of benefits from the NFL disability plan remains pending.

Glaud’s Claim Followed Conflicting Medical Evaluations

Glaud applied for neurocognitive disability benefits in March 2023. The NFL disability plan’s initial claims committee denied the application the following month, and Glaud appealed the decision to the plan’s Disability Board.

Additional examinations followed. In May 2024, the Board referred a specific question to Garmoe, a neuropsychologist, and Riggio, a neurologist: whether Glaud had acquired a neurocognitive impairment.

The two medical advisory physicians did not personally examine Glaud. After reviewing his records, they concluded that his neurocognitive testing scores were invalid and could not reliably establish whether he met the plan’s criteria for impairment.

Glaud later underwent another psychological evaluation at their recommendation. According to the allegations described by the court, that psychologist concluded that Glaud suffered from a neurocognitive disorder resulting from traumatic brain injury.

The Disability Board nevertheless denied Glaud’s appeal in September 2024. Its final letter relied on the medical advisory physicians’ finding that the available testing did not permit a reliable determination of neurocognitive impairment.

Why the Doctors’ “Final and Binding” Authority Became the Central Issue

ERISA does not limit fiduciary status to people formally given the title of trustee or plan administrator. Someone can also become a “functional fiduciary” based on the authority the person actually exercises over a benefit plan.

Glaud argued that Garmoe and Riggio fit that definition because their determinations on referred medical questions were final and binding. Once they concluded that his testing could not establish neurocognitive impairment, the Disability Board was bound by that medical determination.

Judge Kiel agreed that the physicians exercised professional judgment, but he found that their authority stopped at the medical question assigned to them.

Under the plan documents, the Disability Board retained authority to interpret the plan, administer it, and decide whether a claimant ultimately qualified for benefits. The medical advisory physicians could resolve the medical question placed before them, but they could not approve Glaud’s claim or authorize payment of plan assets.

The judge wrote that courts generally focus on actual decision-making authority over a plan rather than the degree of influence a professional adviser may have over a fiduciary’s decision. He concluded that Garmoe and Riggio acted as medical consultants rather than officials administering the NFL benefit plan.

Medical Influence Was Not Enough to Create Fiduciary Liability

Glaud also alleged that the two physicians exercised broader influence over the claims process.

His complaint asserted that Garmoe and Riggio helped prepare an orientation manual used by physicians conducting neurological and neuropsychological examinations for the plan. He also alleged that the doctors had a history of discounting evidence supporting neurocognitive impairment.

Kiel found that neither allegation changed the ERISA analysis.

The judge concluded that writing or contributing to materials used by examining physicians did not give the medical advisers authority to administer the plan. Allegations concerning how they evaluated medical evidence likewise addressed the quality or exercise of their medical judgment rather than the scope of their authority under the plan.

ERISA fiduciary status turns on discretionary authority over plan management or administration. Under Kiel’s interpretation, substantial influence over one component of a benefits determination does not necessarily cross that line.

The result leaves the Disability Board, rather than the doctors supplying medical determinations, as the entity responsible for the ultimate benefits decision.

The Benefits Claim Against the NFL Plan Is Still Alive

The decision does not resolve whether Glaud actually qualifies for neurocognitive disability benefits.

His first claim seeks benefits directly from the NFL Player Disability and Survivor Benefit Plan. Kiel’s September 10 ruling addressed only the additional claims accusing Garmoe and Riggio of breaching ERISA fiduciary duties.

Because the judge found that neither doctor qualified as an ERISA fiduciary, those claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Glaud cannot simply amend the complaint and reassert the same fiduciary theories against them in the district court.

Kiel did not decide the defendants’ additional arguments concerning whether the alleged conduct caused a loss to the plan or whether Glaud had adequately pleaded a fiduciary breach. Once the physicians were found not to be fiduciaries, those questions no longer needed to be reached.

The Ruling Could Shape Other Retired Players’ Disability Claims

The decision could make it more difficult for former NFL players to bring ERISA fiduciary claims directly against medical professionals who participate in the disability review process.

A physician’s opinion can have considerable influence over whether a retired player receives neurocognitive benefits. Under Glaud, influence alone does not establish fiduciary status when the governing plan reserves the final eligibility decision to a separate board.

The ruling comes amid broader litigation challenging the administration of NFL disability benefits. In Alford v. NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan, a group of retired players has accused the disability plan and its administrators of practices that improperly contributed to benefit denials, including claims involving neurocognitive impairment and the plan’s use of medical professionals.

A Maryland federal judge denied class certification in Alford in January 2026, finding that the proposed claims depended too heavily on the individual circumstances surrounding each player’s application to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements for class treatment. Individual ERISA claims remain an important path for retired players challenging benefit decisions.

The Glaud ruling adds another limitation by narrowing which participants in the medical review process can potentially face fiduciary liability.

The Case Is Separate From the NFL Concussion Settlement

The lawsuit should not be confused with litigation involving the NFL concussion class-action settlement.

The concussion settlement established a separate compensation system for qualifying neurological diagnoses among retired NFL players. Glaud concerns benefits available through the NFL Player Disability and Survivor Benefit Plan and the obligations imposed by ERISA on people administering that plan.

Kiel’s ruling does not change the concussion settlement’s eligibility standards, its rules governing diagnoses, or the compensation available under that settlement.

Its significance lies elsewhere. The decision addresses who can be held legally responsible when medical evaluations play a decisive role in an NFL disability-benefit denial.

For retired players challenging neurocognitive benefit decisions, the answer emerging from Glaud is narrower than the amount of influence a medical reviewer might appear to exercise. A claimant seeking to impose ERISA fiduciary liability must still show that the defendant possessed the type of discretionary authority over the plan or benefit determination that federal law treats as fiduciary power.

Glaud’s underlying fight over whether the NFL disability plan wrongfully denied his neurocognitive benefits continues.

Case: Glaud v. The NFL Player Disability and Survivor Benefit Plan, et al., No. 1:25-cv-15373-ESK-EAH, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.