There are occasions in which people ask questions, harbor doubts, and ponder explanations. The potential was recently illustrated in a string of stories regarding a professional football player in Ohio.
Injuries in football are not uncommon. The players expend significant energy, push limits, and, at times, intentionally throw their bodies into the ground or other people. Michael Mandelbaum once noted that "football is controlled violence, but it is violence." That is eloquent.
Various news services reported that a Cincinnati Bengal player, Cam Taylor-Britt, suffered a "Lisfranc injury" to the left foot back in mid-November 2025. The news reports note this condition is likely surgical, and there was a prognostication that it would end his 2025 season.
A Lisfranc is a "joint at the top of your foot," and injury there "can include dislocations, fractures, and sprains." Some of those injuries will require surgery, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
Lisfranc injuries can be challenging for medical providers. The "presentation ... is as diverse as the possible mechanisms," according to Sacha Wynter and Cameron Grigg, Lisfranc Injuries. These can be "subtle." The authors address causation, noting:
"These injuries can occur in numerous circumstances, such as motor vehicle accidents, crush injuries, and falls. Indirect mechanisms include axial force through the foot or twisting on a plantar flexed foot."
It is therefore most certainly plausible that the strain of football activity, running, twisting, and turning, could result in such an injury. Lisfranc injuries do occur. The National Institute of Health has actually studied the occurrence, prevalence, and prognosis of Lisfranc injury in NFL players. Overall, though, Lisfranc injuries are relatively uncommon. They "account for 0.2% of all fractures," but there is a concern about how many go undiagnosed.
Not surprisingly, they are largely coincident with "high-energy injuries." In fact, "45% arise from motor vehicular crashes ... and 10% from sports injuries." The reading is informative; see Buchanan BK, Donnally III CJ. Lisfranc Dislocation, StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448147/.
So, such an injury might raise suspicions or causation questions. Certainly, suffering an injury in a nationally-broadcast event might result in reasonable confidence regarding causation. But did millions witness the injury happening on the field on November 16, or witness a worker acknowledging the presence of injury while on the field?
Weeks after Cam Taylor-Britt's season concluded, the modern world brought him notoriety again. First, there were apparently some people posting videos on social media. Then, news reports began. The video purports to show a vehicle associated with Cam Taylor-Britt being involved in a serious accident. Coincidentally, the accident was "the night before (the) season-ending injury," according to BengalsWire.
Initial reports noted that Cam Taylor-Britt was a backseat passenger at the time of the accident, and a lady was driving. There were differing statements later as to who was driving and the cause of the accident. Eventually, there was an admission that Taylor-Britt's brother was driving. Confusion, misstatement, and conflicting history can be challenging.
To make things less clear, some news stories in January identified the "season-ending" injury as a "left quad injury" (the large muscle on the front of the thigh). That could be simple confusion regarding current statements or a reporter's mistaken recollection of Taylor-Britt's 2023 injuries. Could a physician, therapist, or other professional just as easily mistake or misstate an injury description in a medical record?
Those January news stories also note that Taylor-Britt was involved in reckless driving earlier in 2025. The WLWT coverage says that it included descriptions of other instances that allegedly involved running red lights, driving "sideways down the street," and "driving without a license." Is past behavior of any relevance? Might someone avoid admitting they were driving a car during an accident based on the repercussions of a past event?
This is not to suggest that any of the foregoing is true or not. The point worth consideration is that every day, people are injured. Workers' compensation disputes can involve the extent of an injury or the duration of recuperation, as well as treatment or wage replacement. There, everyone agrees that there was an accident and injury, but the extent of the effects is disputed in some way.
In other cases, there is a dispute as to whether there was a work event or whether any injury occurred from a work event. Even when there is evidence of injury, the cause and source may be disputed. The question may be, did this happen at work? Those are questions of compensability.
What is discussed in compensability situations? Well, did the person have any other events that might have caused this? Were they in a jeep that flipped at 03:30 the day before the work event? Thus, there may be issues about what was damaged, what symptoms are related, and what treatment or compensation is appropriate.
Is the present injury a new event, or is it a recurrence of something prior? That is, if the present injury is a quad, is it the same quad as was injured in 2023? This may seem irrelevant from the standpoint of an employer (same team both years), but it could be a problem as far as coverage if the insurance has changed.
These are questions of causation and compensability. Often, they will be decided based on the credibility of the witnesses who saw or heard the alleged event. They may be witnesses to whom a worker spoke, such as nurses, doctors, or coworkers. They may all require credibility assessment and determination.
Credibility may be impacted by misstatements. Taylor-Britt's brother was a witness. He reportedly told police a drunk woman was driving the Jeep. He was contradicted by physical evidence, such as the position of the driver's seat. He later claimed he was driving.
Taylor-Britt's brother allegedly first asserted that Taylor-Britt was not even in the vehicle at the time of the accident. He and Taylor-Britt later admitted he was, but in the back seat. Might misstatements impact whether the brother is or is not believed about other facts? Is his eventual admission unimpeachable evidence that he was the driver?
Following the significant accident, everyone in the Jeep left the scene. When an accident happens, a departure to obtain help may be viewed positively, while simply leaving may carry a negative connotation.
Does it enhance the credibility of witnesses when police at the scene conclude, "I smell weed reeks of weed?" Is the credibility of those officers impacted when there are nonetheless "no charges filed" (ticket, arrest)? What if the injured person tests positive for weed? Does it matter if they smoked it or if they were merely in a car where others did?
In actuality, the season-ending injury that occurred mid-November was likely exactly as described and witnessed on television. The point here is not to impugn Mr. Taylor-Britt. The point is that such a series of events can raise fact questions. Questions fuel litigation because uncertainty, innuendo, and misstatements drive a need for clarification and resolution. Ultimately, facts can raise complications.
There can be different perspectives on any event. The potentially inconsistent perspectives or recollections don't necessarily change that there was an accident, or that there was an injury. But they may change the outcome on compensability, which is merely about who pays for the resulting loss, see Someone has to Pay (May 2016).
