against the n f l is officially licensed helmet provider right del and associated entities these fifty five players claims have been dismissed by the trial court based upon a perceived violation of the statute of limitations we will go through the reasons that the special editions was not violated and seek reversal from this court and l concussion litigation a number of players began firing lawsuits in two thousand and eleven against the league those lawsuits against illegal allege that the league had suppressed information about the long term brain damage that could and would be fair professional football players who played the game at the highest level with lead to later in life no degenerative disease and when they use the phrase neurodegenerative disease in the context of family football players we're talking about an insidious disease called  comment provider told the n f l players that they could return to the same game or practice after sustaining a head injury without causing any permanent damage check the box so that so that the court system could kind of be apprised of who was in and who was out on certain points there was about five thousand dollars plaintiffs in those cases and so the short form complaints were a technique used to keep track of things but the reason is is a nice cases that are before this court these players allege that they have been injured and here he is the disease and those are the allegations here and then in addition to to those that believe they had an increased risk we also have more than half who have actually been diagnosed with no addition of diseases of the likes of al sometimes memory is the next thing that silliness c t e patient as as human beings age there can be memory issues and so it's often hard to know where someone claim them when they filed the n f l claim or alleged exactly that that they were the increased risk of harm and and so then if a player has triggered some discovery at that point there's a two year statute of limitations a prior a five year statute of limitations but because the conspiracy or geisha is assessed that well certainly concealed from players this injury and that this injury might be due to a career in professional football and so then it would be a five year statute of limitations pursuant to a frazzle concern a statute that that we say  take action to protect and run from players of true risks hidden dangers associated with exposure to repetitive head trauma in football and contributed to the propaganda of junk science sixteen articles medical publications in which right there was a participant with the n f l that said there is no long term problem here because you can return to playing the same get better and then they also deceptively market a construct whereby former n f l players could go and get baseline testing to determine whether or not they had an urgent or disease and they could submit a diagnosis from an independent doctor or what's called a monetary reward fund after demonstrating that they had a diagnosis of the diagnoses around the creditors happened within two years of filing the now because now they're tuned into it and now they can get the firmware so gross that they were already in the n f l so that knowing whether they were in that is exactly the kind of question a fact that needs to be explored in diagnosed and actually in this case was not diagnosed so he gets the benefit of the five years telling because his stature of limitations hasn't even begun to run yet and then that the triggers and when that statue of limitations begins to run you have to go to the diagnosis that you're complaining but then that really gives us guidance i think in our case but when they heard they were trying to make a distinction between cancer  concerned about it when there were fellow players that were fairly lawsuits and there was there was some indication that if a critical mass could be this could be put together and maybe there'd be a settlement and so that's a good bet now that that's an interesting his disability claim in during his fight with loads of london for those insurance benefits i will submit to you the vet has absolutely nothing nothing to do with his claim of knew everything that they needed to know and will incur a notice in the statue of limitations began at that point so that's right those cases are basically nonstarters they're simply not and quite with what we have here because none of them in basis that this concussion litigation and these allegations have been hearing the news the sister gets printed out two thousand and eleven frederick said i don't have enough on that on this point so he was not using your bread story on these and this is a common record at pages fourteen and pages sixteen he said he said her injuries are of a personal and peculiar nature which were not discovered until she was diagnosed with a permanent disability d injuries he didn't know about it's the exact thing he said that triggered his last trip here he's travelling show him your about more than two years before you filed here but was it wasn't his situation  he the final injury in other words they carried him off the field that he never played again as opposed to the up and going series of concussions that th progression so it's a permanent disability is worth a life time disability according to him so he knew enough he had an injury humulin injury he was hired to protect him from that injury and two years later his coming and saying but how much should have protected me from that injury and that's what we're saying he can't do is after those two years come in and say that and in terms of it would be blatant if he's saying that i'm a risk his mistress has said some of those fifty fira are saying that maybe they're merely a risk for future progression that here it's progression and that's what we're talking about is he had an injury that was on that progression continuum according to the complaints so that's what started the craft looking for him if he wants to pursue bedad and the time to do that was within which then the discovery process reveals specifically what they are but i'm telling you the clue is on the camaro he has a chronic condition certainly that he could be compensated for raise the issue that you can't be held accountable as a condition of mission for something that someone else signed another jurisdiction we did raise that if that said that are wrong that this is not sufficient evidence to defeat a claim this is not the kind of that we that we say in this case the plaintiffs the state filed suit against two backers within two years of the patient's death sets a currently records for review fi