Eleventh Circuit Rejects Former NFL Player’s ERISA Claim for Untimeliness and Lack of Plausible Allegations

In Ahanotu v. The Retirement Board of Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, No. 24-11442, 2025 WL 2427591, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of former NFL player Chidi Ahanotu’s lawsuit seeking retroactive and future disability benefits under the league’s collectively-bargained retirement plan. The Court held that the claim was time-barred under the Plan’s 42-month limitations provision and failed to state a plausible claim for relief under ERISA.

Ahanotu, who played twelve seasons in the NFL before retiring in 2005, applied for disability benefits under the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan in 2006. The Plan provides two types of benefits: Line-of-Duty (LOD) benefits for substantial injuries arising from football activities, and the more lucrative Total and Permanent (T&P) disability benefits, which require proof of total and permanent inability to work and must arise “shortly after” the disabling condition manifests.

Ahanotu’s 2006 application resulted in an award of LOD benefits only. The Plan’s letter did not address T&P benefits or advise him of his right to appeal within 180 days. Ahanotu did not seek review at that time. Fifteen years later, in 2021, after obtaining a copy of his 2006 application, he alleged that an unknown Plan employee had altered his submission by crossing out his request for both LOD and T&P benefits, leaving only LOD checked. He demanded retroactive T&P benefits dating back to 2005, which the Plan denied as final and non-reviewable.

The Southern District of Florida dismissed his ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) suit, finding he failed to exhaust administrative remedies and had not shown grounds to excuse that failure.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed but took a different path, assuming—without deciding—that Ahanotu exhausted his remedies. The Court held that the Plan expressly barred legal actions filed more than 42 months after a final decision. Ahanotu sued in 2023—over 17 years after receiving his LOD award. Citing its earlier decision in Witt v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., the Court explained that ERISA claims accrue when a claimant knows, or should know, that benefits have been denied. Continued nonpayment of T&P benefits for over a decade constituted a “clear and continuing repudiation” of his claim, regardless of whether the Plan sent a formal denial letter.

Even setting aside timeliness, Ahanotu’s complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, to support entitlement to T&P benefits or fraudulent concealment. The only evidence offered—his 2006 application—contained no documentation of qualifying disabilities and relied on speculation about alleged tampering. The Court found no plausible basis to infer that the Plan wrongfully denied benefits or concealed material facts.

Finding that Ahanotu’s claim was barred by the Plan’s contractual limitations period, and he did not state a plausible claim to relief, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his second amended complaint.