Jurevicius Sues The Browns

Former NFL receiver Joe Jurevicius is suing the Browns, ex-team Dr. Anthony Miniaci, and current team physician Dr. Richard Figler for "negligence and fraud" regarding his 2007-2008 knee injuries.

4 months ago tomahawk44 21 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Man, no matter what regime is in place, they are definitely still the Browns.

by gahnki on Jun 26, 2009 1:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Florio’s comments display a keen lack of a clue about what he is talking about concerning contracting staph infections

by Roger Dorn on Jun 26, 2009 2:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sigh

from the forest itself comes the handle for the axe

by troy145 on Jun 27, 2009 12:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A sad state of affairs.

considering Joe was a cleveland guy and really wanted to play here. Really just sad it had to come to this.

by johnnyphoenix on Jun 27, 2009 12:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

As far as I know he is suing the clinic, the Browns are merely indicated for unsanitary conditions. Pay him the measly 25.000$ and get him back in a Browns uniform!

by mooncamping on Jun 27, 2009 6:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You are, surprisingly, wrong. Defendants in the civil suit are:

Browns, the Cleveland Clinic, former team physician Dr. Anthony Miniaci, and current team physician Dr. Richard Figle

And while the suit is for $25K, it also includes “unspecified punitive damages” which he will probably argue are considerably more given that his career is likely over following the 7 subsequent operations.

by APV on Jun 27, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I imagine if his knee was destroyed, he would be suing for a little bit more.
Punitive is just hurt pride, some hurt feelings can be assuaded with a simple apology.

by mooncamping on Jun 27, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Punitive damages are not awarded to compensate the plaintiff. They are awarded to deter the defendant and similar parties from continuing in the actions that damaged the plaintiff. Punitive damages are rarely awarded in contract disputes, but since the Browns conduct was negligent and egregiously insidious with no contract claims, punitive damages are likely to be awarded unless the Brown can prove that their conduct did not result in Jurevicius’ infections. From what I have heard, that is unlikely.

Furthermore, the history of other players suffering from the same infections adds to the Brown’s problems.

by BAL_Hawk on Jun 27, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For you to proclaim that the Browns organization was egregiously insidious is a little extreme for my taste. Care to provide any sort of evidence to support your claim?

Staph infections have grown with increasing frequency as the bacteria develops resistance to common treatments. The problem is not limited to the Cleveland Browns or the Cleveland Clinic

by Roger Dorn on Jun 27, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m sorry. I should have said… their alleged conduct. I did say that the Browns would be innocent if they “can prove that their conduct did not result in Jurevicius’ infections.”

by BAL_Hawk on Jun 27, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Youre innocent until proven guilty, so Joe will have to prove that Cleveland had to due with the infection

by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jun 27, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

From the initial news story on Jurevicius’s contraction of staph:

Jurevicius underwent surgery at the Cleveland Clinic. Hospital spokeswoman Eileen Sheil said the staph infection didn’t occur until later.

“The onset was two weeks after his surgery while he was traveling on the West Coast,” Sheil said Friday. “We don’t believe it was related to the surgery.”

Later in the article it mentions the measures the Browns and the Cleveland Clinic had taken prior to Jurevicius’s surgery in response to the prior players who had contracted staph:

Infection-control officials from the Clinic visited the Browns’ facility in October 2005 and July 2006 for basic prevention purposes. The Browns also had their facility treated last year with a special anti-staph agent and are vigilant about taking precautions.

by Roger Dorn on Jun 27, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My main point had to do with punitive damages. My other point was that the Browns alleged conduct was legally negligent and had lasting effects on Jurevicius’ career. Whether they are guilty of Jurevicius’ claims will be determined by a court of law. Six different players with staph infections in four years looks pretty bad to me, but I only implied that it’s “unlikely” that the Browns will escape legal consequences. I did not presume to pass judgement.

by BAL_Hawk on Jun 27, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

by Roger Dorn on Jun 28, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is there anyway the Browns fans can make their intentions known? I mean we are commenting here, and it could or could not be read and received. Is there a way to poll as many fan representatives as possible, and formulate a public statement/intent of the Browns fans?
In such an instance, where a well liked and appreciated former Browns player is facing a problem, can fans form a counterweight to what the front office, the organisation, the owners and media proponents are saying.
I´ve seen some radio station exponents on youtube that go out and poll the people, and get some street level commentary. Do the Browns have anything like that?
If Joe Jurevicious is healthy, and we can get over his grievances with that particular part of the organisation, shouldn´t we want to bring him back into the fold. It would be bitter to see him help another organisation in playoff contention.
So Mr. Mangini, you showed some fortitude in apologizing to Shaun Rogers, is there anyway that you could barter an agreement with Joe Jurevicious?

by mooncamping on Jun 28, 2009 6:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I have a feeling Joey’s playing days are done because of all of these surgeries. No other team has contacted him to play this year

by Roger Dorn on Jun 28, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Favre and Jurevicious, for just one more season. Is that tempting?

by mooncamping on Jun 29, 2009 7:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

On a side note, is this true? “In the end, the league let Kosar choose to play where he wanted. His $5.2 million contract made him the youngest quarterback and the highest-paid player in Browns’ history.”
5.2 million dollars, is the highest contract in Browns history to this day? You could probably pay the whole defense (minus Rogers) with that amount. This is a very frugal franchise, probably better not to put off the sufferers of a national depression.

by mooncamping on Jun 29, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you watch Favre over the second half of last season at all? Favre in his prime, sure. But there is little evidence that he can still play, or that he has a genuine interest in doing so. All things considered, I would have to say that it isn’t tempting at all.

by drjeo on Jun 29, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs