Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
There's some really interesting stuff in there about insurance and injuries, and a lot related to Eichel's situation. Eichel has the opportunity to have his injury reviewed through binding arbitration, but has not elected to do so. Red flag? The language says that the team's doctors and the player's doctors will meet and determine whether the player can return to action. If they cannot agree the league and NHLPA will agree on a third party to consult and make the final binding determination. This may be why Eichel's camp has not gone the route of launching a grievance or going to arbitration because they are confident the outcome would go against them.
|
You indicate that Eichel can choose to go to binding arbitration to decide whether the player can return to action.
What does that have to do with the choice of medical treatment?
You might want to leave the legal interpretation to Gio the lawyer and stick to something else.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk