Planchers haven’t given up regarding NCAA sanctions
A Florida appeal court denied a request asking it to consider UCF’s NCAAsanctions as it weighs key issues in the Ereck Plancher wrongful death appeal.
However, attorneys representingthePlancherfamily haven’t given up on the issue.
The 5th District Court of Appeal issued a ruling Wednesday stating it would not consider UCF President John Hitt’s statements agreeing with the NCAA’s ruling the school suffered from a lack of institutional control over its athletics programs while deciding a key portion of the ongoing Plancher appeal.
The Plancher family attorneys quickly followed up with a motion arguing the court should not have agreed with attorneys representing the UCF Athletics Association and its insurance company, Great American, that Hitt’s statements should not be admissible because they were made after the 2011trial.
There is no timeline for a ruling on the latest motion or UCFAA’s appeal.
The administrative structure of the UCFfootball program has developed into a major issue in the Plancher appeal.
Plancher, a19-year-old receiver, collapsed and died following offseason conditioning drills on campus supervised by football coaches and other UCFAthletics Association staff members. A jury ruled in July 2011 that UCFAA was negligent in Plancher’sdeathandawarded his parents $10 million in damages. With interest and attorney’s fees, the figure has swelled to closer to $15 million.
UCFAA and its insurance companymadethree appeal arguments. They argued Circuit Judge Robert M. Evans treated their attorneys unfairly and sought a new trial. They also argued Plancher signed a waiver that should absolve UCFAA of all liability and the case should be dismissed.
And they argued UCFAA should be treated as a state agency eligible for a settlement cap that limits payment of damages to $ 200,000. The balance would have to be approved by the state Legislature, action that is rarely taken because it is often viewed as an undue burden for taxpayers.
During oral arguments last week in Daytona Beach, UCFAA attorneys stressed the athletics association was clearly part of the university because UCF President John Hitt, a state employee, is chairman of the association and has the ability to dissolve it at any time. They also notedUCF, notUCFAA, is a member of the NCAA.
Plancher attorneys contend in their motion this opened the door to highlighting issues with that oversight, with the NCAA infractions case highlighting Hitt does not necessarily have sufficient control over UCFAA.
They submitted a portion of Hitt’s news conference following the release of the NCAA sanctions spurred by major infractions by former Athletic Director Keith Tribble. The probe focused on recruiting violations and impermissible benefits given to athletes tied to the football and men’s basketball programs.
Hitt said during the news conference clip submitted to the court, “... if you think of the situation we found ourselves in, where our director of athletics — that’s the individual we expect to really represent institutional control at the operational level — when he was involved personally in someof the infractions, um, I couldn’t argue with that notion we showed a lack of institutional control. It’s a terribly disappointing thing.”
UCFAA attorneys cited previous cases in which judges ruled evidence must be limited to the court record before and during the trial and the judgment period. They stressed the NCAA’s decision and Hitt’s remarks were made after the trial.
Shortly after the appeal court ruled in favor of UCFAA Wednesday, the Plancher attorneys filed their motion reiterating Hitt’s remarks should be considered by the judges.
Plancherfamily attorneys assert in their latest response Hitt is a credible source and cited previous cases during which the appeal court considered evidence that took place after the trial. They stressed Hitt’s remarks had no bearing on the jury’s ruling and instead illuminate UCFAA’s administrative structure being debated during the appeal process.
Evans ruled on the issue before the trial began, noting it was a tough decision and he expected the appeal court to review it.