Reason Why Concussion Lawsuit From Ex-WWE Stars Was Dismissed

Vince mcmahon

Injury and the threat of injury are a way of life in professional wrestling. Even in today’s modern era of WWE, the likelihood of Superstars going down is extremely high. But injuries can be rehabbed of course and for many wrestlers, it’s the impact over time that becomes the real issue later on.

This is especially true of 60 former WWE Superstars that recently took their grievances against the company to court. Unfortunately for them however, that case now appears to be done. The New York Post is reporting that a Connecticut federal judge has dismissed the highly publicized lawsuit against Vince McMahon and his company.

Evidently the judge considered the claims leveled by the plaintiffs involved to be without merit. Some of those claims didn’t see the light of day until after the statute of limitations had already expired.

[lawrence-related id=844456]

The lawsuit stated that WWE did not properly keep its Superstars safe from head trauma. That trauma led to concussions and in some cases, brain damage. The judge was apparently so adamant about the frivolity of the lawsuit that she openly criticized the plaintiff’s attorney, Konstantine Kyros.

Kyros spoke out on the dismissal to The Associated Press.

“I stand for professional wrestlers who face the prospect of losing their identity and consciousness to the effects of a latent occupational disease that robs them of their sanity, comfort of their families and memories of everything they achieved entertaining the millions of people who love them.”

Much of the case centered on Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, otherwise known as CTE. CTE is an extremely important topic of conversation in professional wrestling, as the disease is indeed caused by repetitive trauma to the brain. Two of the plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit, Mr. Fuji and Jimmy Snuka, were identified with CTE after their deaths. However that was evidently not enough for the judge to rule against WWE.

Kyros does plan to appeal the case but the timetable for that appeal has not been made public.

Arrow to top