by  John Luciew | jluciew@pennlive.com| Penn Live | published June 4, 2025

EXTERIOR:   PATIO, HERSHEY PA HOME OF DR. SCOTT LYNCH

Award winning Pennlive reporter, John Luciew, sits down with Dr. Scott Lynch and attorney, Steven F. Marino, for an exclusive interview after winning a stunning verdict against Penn State.

JOHN LUCIEW: The secrecy, the lack of transparency, you said, you had it in your closing, you know that was one of the contrasts you drew and one of the big secrets of the trial was this Boland Report, and now right after the verdict, there’s this leak to the Associated Press that reports to be the Boland Report.  What did you guys think of what’s been reported so far, and what impact would that have had on the trial if it had come out earlier?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: What was upsetting about this, about the Boland Report, is his [Bob Boland, attorney, professor, and former Athletics Integrity Officer at Penn State] very essence of existence is supposed to be for transparency and to make sure that ethical obligations are followed.  It’s his whole job. And throughout the course of this trial, we find out that he prepared a report, but instead of undertaking his duties and responsibilities to do exactly that, be transparent and be ethical and to come to a conclusion so we could advance the welfare of athletes, he [Bob Boland] sought the advice of council and hid behind the attorney client privilege.  Penn State sought the advice of counsel and apparently he says, I don’t believe it for one moment –  Mr. Integrity who has no Integrity, he [Bob Boland] claims that he then undertook his investigation at the direction of counsel,  and Judge Dowling, and maybe properly so, we followed his order, he [Judge Andrew H. Dowling] ruled that under the attorney client privilege, his [Bob Boland] investigation was subject to non-disclosure.  So, we didn’t have the benefit of that report at all.  Now, we’re finding out, after the trial, we knew it existed because he [Bob Boland] disclosed his findings to Dr Lynch, but we don’t know what’s in the report and it was done at the direction of counsel.  I don’t know how reliable it is.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you made the point doctor, that you don’t you’re not even sure if this was the original report that got leaked.  Explain what you think of it this this leak.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: The timing is interesting.

JOHN LUCIEW: Right.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: They [Penn State] did all they could to hide it for five years and then all of a sudden the trial ends and it comes out.  You have to remember; we got a hold of it [The Boland Report] before the trial ended, then we get to have all the drafts that were done up to that and all his notes of the investigation to go with it.  So now the trial’s over, suddenly the report comes out with none of the background that supposed to go with it.  That AP [Associated Press] reporter called me and talked to me and he told me that he’s friends with Bob Boland.  When he was interviewing me, he said Bob did not give him the report.  He [Associated Press Reporter] didn’t say who gave it to him.  We saw in the trial that Bob was less than honest.  He’s [Bob Boland] talking to me on his wife’s phone, so maybe Bob let his wife disclose it, or gave it to a friend to disclose it, we just don’t know.

JOHN LUCIEW: What do you think the motive is of putting the report out now?  Is there anything you can draw?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Well the article sort of alluded that it wasn’t that bad, but I kind of disagree with that as well.  The standard that AP reporter tried to use and what Charmell [Charmelle Green, Former Penn State Assistant Athletic Director] tried to use was the standard of Franklin putting a player in that wasn’t medically clear.  That’s not the standard.  The standard is them trying to bully the medical staff into changing decisions.  That’s not appropriate.  If I don’t give in and then he doesn’t put the player in, that can’t happen because there are people out there who will give in.  And as a medical community, we have to admit that.  There are some people who give in.  Every doping scandal in the world, every major doping scandal in the world, has been physician organized.  So we have to acknowledge that sometimes we’re less than perfect as well.  So, the standard can’t be frankly put someone in.  The standard needs to be coaches have to stop trying to influence decisions.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.  What would the impact have been if that came out during the trial, this leak, The Boland Report?  Could that have been a mistrial or, what do you think could have happened?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: It would depend on what the report said. If it was disclosed and it was favorable to us, I probably wouldn’t move for mistrial.  But, then the question is well why was it disclosed, and there would be some legal challenges with regard to that.  But, it may not have had any impact; it depends on what the findings are.  And I’m suggesting that the findings probably aren’t reliable.  If it was done by Boland, at the direction of counsel, and counsel has to know, they have to report,  they have to disclose that report to the trustees, the findings aren’t going to be reliable.

JOHN LUCIEW: Do you think The Boland Report, the fact that it was kept to be this big secret, you know what I mean, and it was referenced throughout the trial, but then there would be an objection, you know,  or something, did that put in the mind of the jury that they were hiding something.  In other words, did the secrecy of  The Boland Report work against the defense.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: In my opinion yes.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you drew that out in the end. You drew that out that this is the cover up on this side and this is the transparency on this side.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Common sense and sensible thinking would suggest if it was favorable, they would have disclosed it.  They would have put on the billboard!  So common sense would suggest that if you draw the inference it was negative to them; it was adverse to them.

JOHN LUCIEW: And the jury saw that, you think?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: I don’t know what’s in the mind of the jury, but that was the inference they should have drawn; a reasonable person would have drawn that conclusion in my mind based on the evidence.  But we don’t know what’s in the report.  We don’t know.  And, we don’t know if it was sanitized.  We don’t know what Boland wrote and gave to the lawyers, and then the lawyers probably sanitized it.  I suspect that’s what happened.

JOHN LUCIEW: Moving on.  After,…. oh go, go ahead

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: So the other thing is the jury heard essentially the same information Bob Boland got.  Same witnesses, pretty much the same everything.  They made a very different conclusion than what’s reported in The Boland Report. In our opinion, perfectly so.

JOHN LUCIEW: And their conclusion, and all of the information they got is now public.  So what does that mean to you?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: That’s what I wanted. Things have to change.  That’s my goal.

JOHN LUCIEW: And in the days since the verdict, what’s life been like?  What are you hearing from people? Negative, positive.  I mean, what has changed so far?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I have not gotten one negative comment.  People at work have come up to me and give me hugs,  saying that you did the right thing.  We know it wasn’t about the money for you, it was about trying to do the right thing to protect kids.  I hear that over and over and over.

JOHN LUCIEW How comfortable is it though knowing that you sued your employer, and I don’t know if that Dr. Black [Kevin Black, MD, orthopedic surgeon] is still your supervisor or not.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: No he’s not.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.  But at the time when you filed the suit, he was, right?  And a friend!

DR. SCOTT LYNCH:Yes.

JOHN LUCIEW: How comfortable or uncomfortable was that?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I don’t think about that kind of stuff.  I just know what’s the right thing to do is to protect the kids.  Whatever happened to me, happened to me.  I wasn’t worried about that.

JOHN LUCIEW: And going back to work, you were in surgery today, right?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Yes.

JOHN LUCIEW: So, is it back to normal at work or what’s different?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Yeah, other than people coming up, and they tell me congratulations, my response always is, well the congratulations should be to the student athletes not to me.

JOHN LUCIEW: Right. And one of the recommendations which you put forward, you know, in some of the correspondence you had after your dismissal, you know with the 10 recommendations and there was a lot of back and forth at the trial about those.  But of those, is there any way to get any action on any of those? – I guess is my question.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I guess we’ll find out. We haven’t had,  Steve [Steven Marino, Esquire] and I,  haven’t had a lot of time to sit down and strategize on where we go from here yet.

JOHN LUCIEW: But one of the key ones [10 recommendations] was that you think in every athletic department there has to be sort of what?  Describe what was the key part of that recommendation?  Describe this.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: So similar to the drug testing program.

JOHN LUCIEW: Yeah.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: There needs to be independent oversight, independent from the universities.  So that someone like Bob Boland can’t go, as an employee of the University, go to council at the University, to cover everything up.  There has to be someone outside of the University who monitors all that stuff.

JOHN LUCIEW: But that person would be around the program though.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Yes.  So they would be embedded at the University, but employed by somebody else.  And the University will pay out to have that person hired and be there.

JOHN LUCIEW: And it would be what? NCAA?  Would it be like a Big 10?  Or what would be the entity you think?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I don’t think the NCAA or the Big 10 can do it either.

JOHN LUCIEW: Ok.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: They’re also in a conflict of interest.  Because they’re making tons of money. So, there’s a company called Drug-Free Sport that runs the drug testing program.  It’s a separate entity.  You get contracted by the NCAA, they also do the Big 10, to come in and do the drug testing program.  So, there’s a completely independent body that’s not beholden to the university or the NCAA.   They can cancel the contract of course, but in terms of the workings of how everything’s done, it’s independent.

JOHN LUCIEW: And that person would be, like, you talked about the weekly stuff that would happen.  You’d have your injury list,  you’d have the questions and answers from the coach, and the doctor.  How would this be different with this independent person?  Like, what would be happening?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: This independent person would not take care of any of the athletes…

JOHN LUCIEW: Right.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: so they, again, remove that conflict of interest.  Their role is oversight; to go talk to the physicians, talk to the coaches, talk to the players.  They would be in charge of hiring and firing of the medical staff.  So that’s all independent, and try to remove as best you, it can never be totally removed, but try to remove the conflict of interest as best you can.

JOHN LUCIEW: So even though that medical staff of the team would be employed by the university, this person would have sort of hiring and firing power over that.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Correct.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: That’s my idea.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: You know, these are all ideas that can be tweaked…

JOHN LUCIEW: Right.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: If someone will ever have a conversation with me about it.

JOHN LUCIEW: There was a little bit of talk, you know, of retirement at the trial too.  Where do you go from here? You were talking about how tough it’s been to build back the practice after having so much work tied to the Penn State program and then trying to get all of those sort of surgeries back up online.  What’s ahead for you personally.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I, again, I haven’t had time to sit down and think through all that yet. So, I’m not sure. I’ve talked about retiring, you know, loosely for a while (laughs); I think most people my age do (laughs).  So, but I got to sit down and talk to Steve, and talk to my wife.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you turned 63 the night of the verdict came in, right?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Correct.

JOHN LUCIEW: Wow. Wow.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I told her [Debbie Lynch, wife] I can’t wait to see how she tops it next year. (laughs)

JOHN LUCIEW: All right! Yeah, that was a party.  What did you guys do after the verdict?  Given that it was your birthday and that you won the case, was there a big party or what?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: No.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: We just had a beer! (laughs)

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: We had some food and beer. At the pub there.

JOHN LUCIEW: There’s this statement out from Penn State Health about a possible appeal.  Is there is anything, idea what that could look like, or what, they would try to appeal?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Judge Dowling [Judge Andrew H. Dowling]  ran a very clean trial, I thought.  He was efficient.  He was fair.  He made rulings on both sides; for and against us, for and against them.  I thought he was very clean.  I don’t see any significant appellant issues at all.  It’s always a threat by everyone who’s disgruntled with the verdict.  I thought he ran a very clean efficient trial.  He was a very fair judge, no complaints.

JOHN LUCIEW: And there was this constant motion though, about trying to just say that it didn’t meet the standard of the law, the at-will employee, you know the exceptions, or stuff like that.  Was that just perfunctory defense going through the motions there or what was that all about?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: I don’t think their arguments had any merit, but this cause of action is very unique and it’s very limited in Pennsylvania.  So, what this lawsuit has done, it has established that the standard of care for a doctor who manages collegian athletes, now includes making sure that their medical decisions aren’t interfered with with a judge.  The NCAA, the NCAA guidelines, and the Big 10 rules, those are rules that apply to some private organization like the National rifer Association or the milk maid association, and the NCAA, they’re private organizations.  That’s not Pennsylvania law.  This case established Pennsylvania LAW.  That’s the difference.  The standard of care now INCLUDES not allowing a medical judgment to be interfered with by a coach.  That’s the standard of care now in Pennsylvania.  That’s the Law!.  And if you adversely affect someone, a doctor who does that, it creates now a cognizable cause of action; we call it an employment action.  That’s what this case established.  It’s very important; the first one in the nation.

JOHN LUCIEW: Wow.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: That’s why it’s so important.  The NCAA standards now have become Pennsylvania law.

JOHN LUCIEW: Oh, so that was sort of an NCAA rule that you couldn’t interfere…

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Right. That’s not Pennsylvania policy.

JOHN LUCIEW: And that’s something you couldn’t sue on!

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Can’t sue on it.  It’s not Pennsylvania policy. Now, it is recognized, even though not verbatim, in theory it’s recognized as Pennsylvania law.  That’s why this case is so important.

JOHN LUCIEW: Do you think now that this is established we’re going to see more suits regarding this?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Well, this case is a very unique fact pattern. But, if another medical provider suffers an adverse consequence,  a job consequence, because they followed the standard of care when they’re dealing with collegiate athletes, we have a precedential cause of action.  It could be a cognizable claim; at least in Pennsylvania it will be.  Other states, they all have their own different rules and regulations, their own common law, so I don’t know how it would be in other states, but the theory is proper.  This is a part of now Pennsylvania public policy that implicates the important public policy of public health, welfare, and safety.  That’s why it’s so important.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay.  I like that. In terms of having everything come out that came out, you know, and you did promised fireworks and you delivered.  What’s the damage to Penn State brand as a result of this?  I mean, you had two cases of doctors being fired sort of at the coach’s behest; you know what I mean.  That was pretty well established, I thought.  Now the fact pattern wasn’t the same for Sebastianelli [Dr. Wayne Sebastianelli, former Director of Athletic Medicine and head orthopedic surgeon for Penn State Athletics].   It wasn’t because he was clashing over player decisions and medical treatments, but it was sort of, the coach wanted him out so he was gone.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: Do you want my opinion or his [Dr. Scott Lych’s] opinion?

JOHN LUCIEW: Yeah both.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: I closed on the football team in 1946 where Steve Suhey*, the lineman and captain of the Penn State football team, where they [Penn State football team] refused to play without their African American players against the segregated Mississippi, and he [Steve Suhey] said “We Are One, We Are Penn State”.   They stood for dignity, they stood for principle, they stood for integrity.  Just like him [Steve Susrey], we stand for integrity.  If you’re blue and white, if you’re part of the nation, you stand for integrity, you stand for principle, you stand for honesty,  you stand for transparency, you stand for what Dr. Lynch represents.  You don’t stand for what Hershey [Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center] represented in that trial.  They can’t claim that “We Are” — We can.  That’s the difference.  That’s the brand.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you think you reminded Penn Staters who might just as say, well this is creating, you know, a bad look for the site.  You’re reminding them, hey, that integrity is more important?  Do you think this trial reminds them…

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: If you’re going to claim blue and white, if you’re going to claim you’re part of the nation, if you’re going to claim, “We are Penn State”, yes, integrity first.

JOHN LUCIEW: Dr. Lynch, what are your thoughts on how this reflected on Penn State, something near and dear to you.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: As I said in my trial, it’s yes and no.  The people on the other side of the courtroom, that’s not, they’re not Penn State.  The people in the trenches, people I work with every day at Penn State Health, the same thing.  The people in the trenches, the people who come up to me and say, thank you.  The athletic trainers who are ecstatic that I did this to help them, that’s Penn State and Penn State Health; that’s not the bureaucrats and the lawyers.  They’re screwing it all up.  And you know, “We Are” is people in the trenches doing the work, the hard work.  One of my good friends, I won’t tell you his name, he’s worked at Penn State for 40 years, he now says, “We Were”.   We need to get back to the upper-level of people doing transparency and the same thing.

JOHN LUCIEW: And you thought that lesson was learned during the Sandusky* episode and you had this integrity office that was born of that scandal, yet it didn’t work here.  Does that lead to…

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Well it was actually exactly the opposite.  What happened is they figured out they could use that Integrity Officer position to hide things.  They didn’t actually have to keep it after the Sandusky sanctions went away. They decided to keep it.  And then they used it to cover up things; that’s why Bob Boland ran to the attorneys right away; not to do the job he was supposed to do. He [Bob Boland] used that position to hide information.  I mean, think about that, how sick is that.

JOHN LUCIEW: Will you ever be able to enjoy it like you used to.  You know, the whole Penn State experience of being an alumni, of being a former athlete, of being, you know, a national champion wrestler for the Nittany Lions?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: If they start doing the right thing and be transparent, and if the administration starts to do that, yeah.  I love Penn State; it changed my life.  I wouldn’t be where I’m at without Penn State, so it’s the people in the trenches and who are doing the hard work.

JOHN LUCIEW: And I know you had the athletes foremost in this thing from the beginning.  Two high-profile athletes sort of came up for Franklin, do you think, in time, you’ll hear from more athletes, you know, about what you did?

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I’ve already heard from some.

JOHN LUCIEW: Okay. So, it’s just, you know, it’s one of these things where they’ll come to you, but they might not want to sit on a on a witness stand.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: Yeah, it’s hard. What Rob Windsor* did took an amazing amount of courage.  To go against, you know, a school, like us!  It was hard for us! [Dr. Lynch points to Steve Marino].  Rob Windsor didn’t have anything to gain by doing that, personally.  He wanted, wants them, again, to do the right thing.

JOHN LUCIEW: And Steve, do you think other people, who might have something that is a miss at Penn State, they might come to you, to help them out.  Are you sort of developing a reputation of somebody who can go against Penn State and win?

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: I don’t know if I can comment on that (laughs slightly).  I did my job in this case.  But, like Dr Lynch said, I’m a Penn State athlete; I went to Penn State on an athletic scholarship; I was a gymnast. I was on a national team and it didn’t please me, you know, when I got called upon to do this.  I had to think through it long and hard!  But I’m with him (points to Dr. Lynch),   integrity first.  And when he [Dr. Lynch] says it wasn’t hard to sue his employer, he’s being very modest.  It’s difficult, difficult, to make a choice to sue and potentially hurt the things that we love; things that change our lives, change tradition, that takes tremendous courage.  He’s being modest (laughter).

JOHN LUCIEW: As always.  Well guys, I really appreciate your time on this and I like how we put it into a personal perspective but also that legal perspective of the ground that was broken on this case in terms of standard of care.

STEVEN MARINO, ESQUIRE: It is groundbreaking, you’re right.  That’s a good way to describe it.

DR. SCOTT LYNCH: I want to share one other thing.  You know, we just touched the surface of how many kids were affected by this.  I had a player send me a text after Dr Seidenberg [Dr. Peter Seidenbert, MD, orthopedic surgeon, formerly served as a team physician for Penn State  football] talked about the suicide issue, and he wanted to know if that was about him.  And it was not about him, but there’s many other things that have happened that have not come light.

Employers who violate the law should be held accountable. If you were wrongfully terminated because of discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, or another unlawful reason, Marino Associates is prepared to investigate your claim, preserve critical evidence, and aggressively pursue the compensation and justice you deserve. Call ( (215) 462-3200 or complete our online contact form to speak with an experienced wrongful termination attorney today. Your case consultation is free.

An internal review by Penn State in 2019 found evidence of “friction” between football coach James Franklin and a now-former team doctor, but it could not determine whether Franklin violated NCAA bylaws or Big Ten standards by interfering with medical decisions.

The 15-page document from Penn State’s office of ethics and compliance, dated June 3, 2019, was obtained by The Associated Press last week, the day after a Pennsylvania jury awarded $5.25 million to Dr. Scott Lynch for winning a wrongful termination lawsuit against the hospital that employs him.

The report left undetermined if Franklin or anyone else at Penn State broke any rules. It acknowledged the athletic department’s desire to make a change came after periods friction between Lynch and senior leadership in the department. The report also recommends further inquiry.

Penn State said in a statement to The Associated Press it was extremely disappointed in the jury’s ruling last week. The school said its medical decisions regarding the care of athletes and whether they can compete adhere to NCAA rules and Big Ten standards.

“The changes made in the leadership for athletic medicine were made by the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center with a singular focus: the best interests of our student-athletes,” Penn State said. “In the plaintiff’s own legal filing, which Penn State reported to the Big Ten Conference in compliance with its obligations, the plaintiff acknowledged that the medical care of our student-athletes was never influenced by coaches or anyone at the university.”

The school did not detail what internal follow-up — as suggested by the report — was done.

MEDICAL DECISIONS

Coaching staffs are expected to leave medical decisions to team physicians and athletic trainers when it comes to player availability. Players are encouraged to advocate for their safety and not play through injuries, but just how much coaches influence putting a player back on the field is difficult to quantify.

Lynch told AP he believes coaches interfering with medical decisions is a problem across college sports.

“I think it’s a crisis,” Lynch said. “That nonsense has to stop.”

Lynch, a former national champion wrestler at Penn State, said he made recommendations to Penn State to better safeguard medical staff from pressure from coaches, but none were implemented.

“Protecting the health and welfare of our student-athletes is our single most important priority. Throughout James Franklin’s tenure, he has worked tirelessly to build a program focused on the well-being of student-athletes,” Penn State said.

The report, which was marked attorney/client privileged draft, was prompted by a complaint to Penn State’s athletic integrity officer made by Lynch after the doctor was removed from his position in March 2019. Lynch’s attorney tried to get the report entered as evidence in the trial, but it was denied.

The report said conflicts between Franklin and Lynch “may have been viewed as part of the natural friction between a physician and athletic interests.”

PENN STATE CASE

Franklin was originally named in Lynch’s lawsuit, but was dropped from the case along with Penn State athletics because of the statute of limitations. The case moved forward against Hershey Medical Center, where Lynch was based, and Dr. Kevin Black, the chairman of the department of orthopedics at the center.

Lynch’s attorneys argued the doctor was removed from his position as director of sports medicine at Penn State as retaliation for frequent conflicts with Franklin over the medical treatment of players. Lynch said the school attempted to hide Franklin’s involvement in his dismissal by saying he was replaced because he lived and practiced medicine in Hershey, which is about 100 miles southeast of the Penn State campus in State College.

Penn State officials said Lynch not living and working full-time in State College was inefficient and inconvenient for athletes and coaches. The report said Penn State’s preference for a team physician in residence full time in State College seemed to be based more on perception than conclusive evidence that it would improve coverage.

Defense attorneys in the trial said no medical treatments were ever altered under pressure from Franklin or other Penn State coaches and the internal report concluded the same.

The report also said there was “limited demonstrated evidence” that the removal of Lynch was made with a “retaliatory motive.” Lynch reported to Black in consultation with Penn State athletics, according to a contract between the school and hospital, the report said.

NCAA RULES

NCAA bylaws require schools to support “the unchallengeable autonomous authority of the primary athletics health care providers” when it comes to treatments and “return-to-play decisions.” Big Ten Conference standards bar coaches from “attempting to influence inappropriately any member of the medical or athletic training staff” regarding treatment.

Franklin has been the head coach at Penn State for 10 years, with an 88-39 record and five seasons of double-digit victories but just one Big Ten title (2015). The Nittany Lions were 10-3 last season.

Penn State gave Franklin a 10-year contract in 2021 with guarantees of more than $75 million. His buyout if he was to be fired by Penn State currently stands at more than $50 million, though a major NCAA violation could void the payment.

“My goal is not to target anybody in particular,” Lynch told AP. “My overarching goal is to try to get policies and procedures in place to stop this from happening. So what happens to him is not really my concern. My concern is way above that. Not just at Penn State. I’m hoping that this can be a catalyst so other people come forward now and we can effect change.”

SIX FOOTBALL INCIDENTS

Penn State investigators interviewed multiple people, including Lynch, Franklin and several Penn State athletes, who were asked about instances from 2016-19 when Lynch alleged his authority had been challenged. Six incidents involved football player injuries. Another involved a men’s soccer player. The athletes were not identified in the report.

Lynch and another doctor told investigators for the report that Franklin would say “words to the effect, ‘that I’ve been doing this for 30 years and you’ve only being doing this four years.’”

According to the report, after a football player was ruled out of a game in 2016 with an ankle injury, Lynch and another doctor were pressed by Franklin and a Penn State administrator to re-evaluate the decision. The player did not play. During the trial, former Penn State star running back Saquon Barkley, now with the Philadelphia Eagles, testified about the decision and in support of Franklin.

Franklin told investigators this was his only specific recollection of friction between him and the doctors.

That same year, another player decided to have surgery instead of rehabilitating a shoulder injury in an effort to return to play faster, the report said. Lynch had given the player the option of surgery or rehab, but he claimed the player changed his mind after Franklin became involved.

According to the report, Franklin, then-athletic director Sandy Barbour and another administrator demanded a player with a “serious mental issue” be declared a medical non-counter — meaning he would not count against the team’s scholarship limit but could still have his tuition covered — before the athlete had received treatment. This allegedly occurred before the team’s postseason banquet and in the locker room after the final game of the 2017 season.

Barbour, who retired in 2022, declined to comment, citing the legal case.

“At Penn State, student-athletes compete only upon the independent approval of the medical team and physicians, who do not report to any coach or to Intercollegiate Athletics,” Penn State said. “These measures, which protect our student-athletes, were put in place long before Coach Franklin or Dr. Lynch were in their roles and worked as intended. Neither the five-year old internal compliance report nor the information shared during the trial suggested otherwise.”

Losing your job because of unlawful discrimination, retaliation, or other wrongful conduct can be financially and emotionally devastating. While no legal action can erase what happened, it can hold employers accountable and help restore your future. Marino Associates has successfully represented employees in complex wrongful termination litigation and is prepared to protect your rights. If you believe you were wrongfully terminated, contact us today for a free, confidential case evaluation. Call (215) 462-3200 or complete our online evaluation form to speak directly with an experienced employment attorney.

Nike’s contract with Penn State was put under a microscope Tuesday morning at the ongoing trial brought by the university’s former football doctor who claims he was wrongfully terminated.

At issue in the Dauphin County Court case of Dr. Scott Lynch was what his attorney called a “no spatting” clause in the $1 million-plus-a-year contract with the athletic shoe company first inked in 2005.

Spatting refers to the taping of a football player’s ankle – a common practice before and during games. The contract spells out that ankle taping that obscures the Nike logo on shoes and other gear could be a violation of the high-dollar deal that has only increased in value in the decades since.

The highly redacted contract, which was entered into evidence, goes on at great length about Nike’s desire for “logo prominence” and “favorable presentation” as part of Penn State athletes wearing the company’s shoes and other gear during games, practices and other appearances.

The contract bans “reducing or restricting logo placement.”

“Cover the logo, it’s a material breech?” Lynch’s attorney, Steven F. Marino, asked Richard Kaluza, Penn State’s senior associate athletic director for finance and business operations.

Marino then pointed out that “spatting” – taping a player’s ankle over the shoe and covering the Nike logo – is “inconsistent” with the contract and could amount to a “material breech.”

Kaluza, under questioning, disagreed with Marino, pointing out that the contract banned “unauthorized spatting” – not all spatting.

Marino then pressed him on what amounted to “unauthorized spatting,” arguing this could violate the “medical autonomy” of a team physician like Dr. Lynch from acting in the best interest of injured players.

“Over and over, no unauthorized spatting. How does that not violate medical autonomy?” Marino pressed.

Again, Kaluza disagreed.

Under defense questioning, Kaluza explained spatting could be authorized by the team’s medical professionals, like Lynch, and its athletic trainers.

The defense also pointed out that some Nike football cleats have the logo on the toe and heel so that even taped shoes still show the logo. The defense introduced photos of former PSU players, including quarterback Christian Hackenberg and Saquon Barkley, with their ankles taped during games and the Nike logo still visible.

“Two of Penn State’s star players were spatted without Nike reducing compensation,” the defense attorney pointed out.

Lynch was fired from his dual roles as Penn State’ director of athletic medicine and orthopedic consultant to the football team on March 1, 2019, leading to his lawsuit.

The suit alleges Lynch had repeated clashes with Nittany Lions head football Coach James Franklin, who took over in 2014. Lynch claims he was terminated from his dual roles because he refused to “allow a coach to interfere with his medical treatment and return to play decisions.” Lynch says he reported Franklin’s interference to Penn State Athletics and Penn State Health, including his immediate supervisor there, Dr. Kevin Black, who’s also being sued by Lynch.

Lynch is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages in the case.

The defense asserts there’s no evidence Lynch ever altered his medical treatment of players under pressure from Franklin — or anyone else.

Franklin and Penn State Athletics have since been dropped from the lawsuit over a filing technicality.

Employers who violate the law should be held accountable. If you were wrongfully terminated because of discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, or another unlawful reason, Marino Associates is prepared to investigate your claim, preserve critical evidence, and aggressively pursue the compensation and justice you deserve. Call ( (215) 462-3200 or complete our online contact form to speak with an experienced wrongful termination attorney today. Your case consultation is free.

It’s the report that cannot be discussed in any detail. Yet, a secret investigation centered on Nittany Lions head coach James Franklin is at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Penn State’s fired football doctor and dismissed director of athletic medicine, Dr. Scott Lynch.

The confidential report was penned by Robert Boland, then Penn State Athletics’ Integrity Officer under the Office of Ethics & Compliance. The position was createdin the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal to provide neutral investigatory expertise; assist with policy development, as well as education and implementation of best-practice standards across Penn State sports.

Lynch said he filed a complaint with Boland after he was dismissed from his dual medical roles with the team in March 2019. Lynch’s complaints stem from pressure he said was applied by Franklin to have the team’s doctors and trainers alter their player treatment plans and medical decisions to speed the injured athletes back to the practice and playing fields.

Boland has since left the university. He would not comment when previously contacted by PennLive.

In pretrial rulings by Dauphin County Court Judge Andrew Dowling, the Boland report has been declared a “privileged” work product that was undertaken at the direction of Penn State University’s attorneys. Not only are the details of the report off limits from being discussed during the ongoing trial, Boland was banned from testifying about it.

UPDATE: Late Wednesday, about 2 1/2 hours’ worth of Boland’s sworn deposition in the Lynch case was read into the record before the jury. The material included long question-and-answer sessions with attorneys on both sides of the case. In many of the exchanges, the lawyerly Boland parsed questions and often dodged direct answers. His integrity office report on his investigation into Franklin’s alleged interference with medical treatment of football players was referred to as a “draft that was never finalized.” However, a copy of the report and its findings went all the way up to the then-president of Penn State University. Once again in the carefully redacted deposition excerpts read at the trial, no details of Boland’s findings on Franklin were revealed.

Beyond that, mentions of the report and Boland’s investigation into allegations of medical meddling by Franklin have surfaced repeatedly during the trial.

Each time word of the Boland report or his investigation comes up, defense attorneys jump up to object. In fact, Penn State University has its own attorney present in court specifically to protect its interests in keeping the Boland report secret. His name is James S. Urban. The university is not a defendant in the trial, but Urban said the university was granted standing to intervene in the case to protect the privileged Boland report.

Despite all this, nuggets of information have surfaced about the report and investigation.

Dr. Pete Seidenberg, who served as a primary care team physician during Franklin’s early years as head coach, testified Tuesday, backing up many of Lynch’s claims about medical meddling by Franklin and other coaches. Seidenberg testified he was one of those interviewed by Boland during his investigation, adding that he relayed specific instances of Franklin’s actions to interfere in player treatments and medical decisions to Boland.

Seidenberg indicated he was in repeated touch with Boland throughout the investigation and the writing of Boland’s draft report. The doctor called the probe “thorough and complete.”

Jay Paterno, son of former Nittany Lions’ coach Joe Paterno and a longtime assistant coach, also referenced the Boland report from the witness stand on Wednesday.

As a member of Penn State’s board of trustees since 2017, Paterno testified he and the board were briefed on the Boland report by a trustees’ attorney who provided them with regular updates on all legal matters involving the university.

Paterno was stopped by defense objections from detailing the legal briefing on the Boland report. But he indicated the level of detail given was not specific enough to prompt him or any other trustee to refer the matter to the NCAA.

Lynch’s attorney, Steven F. Marino, suggested in court the trustees didn’t receive a detailed enough briefing, suggesting they were purposely kept in the dark.

“Nobody told you,” Marino said.

Paterno said he wouldn’t have hesitated to refer the matter to the NCAA if he had “sufficient facts.” But he said he was “not familiar with material facts of Dr. Lynch’s complaints.”

There were never any NCAA investigations or violations based on Lynch’s allegations.

The Boland report came up again when the former VP of human resources for Penn State Health was on the stand. Jane Mannon, since retired, testified she received a retaliation complaint from Lynch after he was informed by his immediate supervisor there, Dr. Kevin Black, that he was being removed from his dual roles with Penn State Athletics in March of 2019.

Mannon had a private meeting with Lynch about his complaint. During the meeting, Lynch cited numerous examples of being pressured by Franklin to alter his medical decisions and treatment plans for injured football players.

In wake of this, Mannon said she immediately contacted the health company’s lawyers. Her human resources investigation then became a joint probe with Boland, who was investigating the allegations against Franklin.

Under sometimes testy questioning by Marino, Mannon said this was the first time an HR probe was conducted this way. She added that she wrote a report on her investigation but indicated it was never made available to Lynch or his attorneys because it was folded into the now-secret Boland report.

“Coach Franklin’s name’s involved, you get a new protocol,” Marino said. “Coach Franklin’s involved; new rules!”

Answered Mannon: “I have never had to because the situation had never occurred. It was a different situation. The specifics of the investigation required we do it this way. The claims that Dr. Lynch was making… there were other claims he had that were outside of my purview.”

Another witness who referenced the Boland investigation was former star defensive tackle Rob Windsor, a member of the Lions’ from 2015-19, then drafted by the Indianapolis Colts.

Windsor detailed his difficulty receiving medical attention after Andy Mutnan replaced Tim Bream as Penn State’s head athletic trainer during the player’s final season of eligibility.

Windsor testified that Mutnan ignored his requests to consult with Lynch about his injured knee that season. Instead, Mutnan told Windsor to come in for continued treatments in the training room to work through the injury.

At one point in the days before a game, Windsor said he texted Dr. Lynch about his knee, going around Mutnan. This action resulted in a rare Friday night meeting among Windsor, Mutnan and Lynch as the football team was hunkered down at the Penn Stater Hotel on the eve of a home game.

At the meeting, Windsor said Lynch “set the record straight,” telling Mutnan: “If my players are injured and they want to see me, allow them to see me.” Windsor described Mutnan as displaying a “sour demeanor” at being chastised by Lynch.

“I felt like Andy Mutnan only cared about getting us on the field as quickly as possible and not letting us fully heal from out injuries,” Windsor testified.

The player also confirmed what had been earlier referred to as Coach Franklin’s “no-spatting” policy, designed to protect the Nike logo on players’ shoes from being covered up by ankle tapings. In 2005, Penn State Athletics inked an exclusive marketing and equipment deal with Nike that at the time was valued at more than $1 million and has been renewed and increased in the decades since.

“Ankles weren’t allowed to be spatted,” Windsor testified of the supportive taping practice. “We weren’t allowed to cover up the Nike logo on the cleat.”

“Whose orders were those?” Marino asked.

“Coach Franklin’s,” Windsor answered.

The player indicated he was later interviewed by Boland about these experiences as part of the investigation triggered by Lynch’s complaints following his dismissal. Windsor added that he knew of at least one other player interviewed by Boland on these subjects.

Lynch was fired from his dual roles as Penn State’ director of athletic medicine and orthopedic consultant to the football team on March 1, 2019, leading to his lawsuit.

The suit alleges Lynch had repeated clashes with Franklin, who took over in 2014. Lynch claims he was terminated from his dual roles because he refused to “allow a coach to interfere with his medical treatment and return to play decisions.”

Lynch says he reported Franklin’s interference to Penn State Athletics and Penn State Health, including his immediate supervisor there, Dr. Kevin Black, who’s also being sued by Lynch. He is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages in the case.

The defense asserts there’s no evidence Lynch ever altered his medical treatment of players under pressure from Franklin — or anyone else.

Franklin and Penn State Athletics were dropped from the lawsuit over a filing technicality.

Employers who violate the law should be held accountable. If you were wrongfully terminated because of discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, or another unlawful reason, Marino Associates is prepared to investigate your claim, preserve critical evidence, and aggressively pursue the compensation and justice you deserve. Call ( (215) 462-3200 or complete our online contact form to speak with an experienced wrongful termination attorney today. Your case consultation is free.

BREAKING: $5.25 million verdict for fired football doctor a loss for James Franklin

One of Penn State’s most prized running backs in history radiated warmth as he talked glowingly of his “family”-like relationship with Nittany Lions head coach James Franklin.

Giants-turned-Eagles running back Saquon Barkley took the witness stand for the defense in a fired Penn State football doctor’s civil trial. The running back didn’t have a bad word to say about Franklin, despite the coach being painted at trial as attempting to interfere with medical decisions on injured players.

“I know how great a guy Coach Franklin is. I know how much impact he’s had in my life,” Barkley testified via video conference in Dauphin County Court on Wednesday.

The sensational Penn State running back from 2015-18 seasons appeared for the defense in the lawsuit brought by Dr. Scott Lynch, who was ousted as orthopedic consultant to the football team and medical director for Penn State Athletics in March, 2019.

Lynch claims he was terminated because he refused to “allow a coach to interfere with his medical treatment and return to play decisions,” referring to Franklin, who took over in 2014.

But when Barkley suffered a high-ankle sprain during his high-impact freshman year, the running back said he felt no pressure from Franklin. Rather, Saquon testified he put all the pressure on himself to return to the field.

“He never said play through the pain,” the No. 2 overall player in the 2018 NFL draft said. “I was so focused on myself, trying to rehab to get back on the football field. When you’re a competitor and you play the game you love, you want to get back out there.”

After his injury in the San Diego State game, Barkley was told his high-ankle sprain could take anywhere from two to six weeks to heal. He was ruled out for the upcoming Army game, but his status for the next game, versus Indiana, was on the bubble.

“I wanted to play. I was trying to get back,” Barkley testified, adding that it was “crazy to think” his freshman year was now 10 years in the past.

Penn State football’s medical staff, then headed by Lynch, ended up ruling Barkley out for a second game.

Barkley recalled the emotional moment this way from the witness stand: “They were going to sit me down another week. I cried. I felt I could have played. I guess we made a decision to be smart and sit another week.”

Under questioning by Lynch’s lawyer, Barkley said he was not in a position to witness any of the conversations among Franklin, Lynch and the rest of the training and medical staff about the running back’s ankle injury and the decision to rule him out for a second straight game. In prior testimony, Lynch, another team doctor and the then-head trainer described Franklin as “angry” and bucking for Barkley’s return.

“Did I agree with the decision? No,” Barkley testified. “I put my trust in them. I had a lot of great people who put my interests first. Sometimes you have to protect the player from himself.”

After his two-game injury hiatus, Barkley logged a stellar game against then the No. 1-ranked Ohio State Buckeyes, racking up 194 yards on 26 carries.

It was then the freshman realized reaching the NFL wasn’t just a childhood dream.

“That’s when my dream became more of a reality,” Barkley testified.

Apart from the ankle injury, Barkley said his “best” story about Franklin was how the coach reacted when the star running back told him he was pondering a move to the NFL after just his third season at Penn State.

Barkley described himself to the jury as being torn by this pivotal moment in his football life. On one side, there was the life-changing money that being a top pick in the NFL could provide his family. On the other was the pull of unfinished business at Penn State – namely winning the Heisman Trophy and a National Championship.

But when Barkley went to Franklin and confessed that he was thinking about returning for a fourth season, the head coach wouldn’t hear of it.

“I had a real conversation with myself about coming back,” Barkley testified. “Coach Franklin definitely encouraged me to go chase my dream and play in the NFL. He pushed on to me to leave college.”

All these years later, Barkley seemed to marvel at what he saw as the selflessness of Franklin’s advice.

“Your star player is willing to come back, and your coach who is all about winning tells you to ‘do what’s best for your and take care of you family’. That’s one of the best stories. It shows who Coach Franklin is.”

Under questioning by Lynch’s lawyer, Steven Marino, Barkley said Franklin texted him about testifying for the defense in the case.

“Lawyers would like to know if you would speak on my behalf?” Barkley said the coach asked him.

“I said, ‘yeah, I’m down’,” the running back added.

Asked if he was “indebted” to Franklin, Barkley shot back: “I don’t feel indebted to nobody except my mom and dad.”

Marino raised Barkley’s initial commitment to play at Rutgers, only to switch to Penn State after Franklin’s full-court press to recruit the running back.

“Committing to Rutgers was a promise. Coach Franklin asked you to break that promise,” Marino pressed.

“No, actually, he recruited me,” Barkley answered, indicating he hadn’t yet signed a letter of intent.

“Coach Franklin persuaded you to change your mind,” Marino stated. Barkley agreed.

Lynch maintains he reported Franklin’s interference to Penn State Athletics and Penn State Health, including his immediate supervisor there, Dr. Kevin Black, who’s also being sued by Lynch. He is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages in the case. Franklin and Penn State Athletics were dropped from the lawsuit over a filing technicality.

The trail is expected to continue through Wednesday, as the defense wraps up its case.

If you believe you were wrongfully terminated, retaliated against for reporting misconduct, discriminated against, or fired in violation of Pennsylvania or federal employment laws, Marino Associates is prepared to help. Our attorneys investigate wrongful termination, retaliation, whistleblower, discrimination, and employment law claims throughout Pennsylvania. Contact us today for a free case evaluation by calling (215) 462-3200 or completing our online contact form to discuss your legal options with an experienced employment lawyer.

James Franklin and Penn State University won’t have to pony up the $5.25 million a Dauphin County jury awarded a fired football doctor Wednesday night. That payment will be the responsibility of defendants Penn State Health, and the orthopedics boss who removed the doctor from his Penn State team roles, Dr. Kevin Black.

But the big win by Dr. Scott Lynch, who was ousted as orthopedic consultant to the football team and director of athletic medicine at Penn State in 2019, clearly comes at the expense of the Nittany Lion head coach and his reputation.

In wake of the stunning verdict, Lynch agreed the head coach was at the heart of the case. But there’s an even bigger goal for the one-time National Champion wrestler for Penn State who turned 63 on the same day the jury awarded him millions in his five-year legal battle.

“It’s not just James Franklin. This is about college sports and protecting college athletes,” Lynch told PennLive after the courtroom cleared.

“I don’t want to talk about him,” he added of the coach Lynch clashed with over player injuries. “I want to talk about the overarching goal, which is to get measures in place to protect student athletes. That’s what it’s always been about for me.”

Still, Franklin’s name, along with his alleged actions and testy temperament toward Lynch and other medical and training staff, came up time and again in the seven-day trial. This, despite the head coach and Penn State Athletics being dropped from the case years ago over a filing deadline technicality.

Lynch maintained his dismissal from his dual football roles followed repeated clashes with Franklin over the doctor’s medical judgments regarding injured players after the head coach took over in 2014. Lynch claimed he was terminated because he refused to “allow a coach to interfere with his medical treatment and return-to-play decisions,” referring to Franklin.

Yet, the defense team, which put a pair of former Penn State star players on the witness stand, never bothered to call Franklin, despite the coach being at the crux of the case.

It might never be known why lead defense attorney, Sarah Bouchard, decided to rest her case without the head coach answering for a litany of examples cited by Lynch, a second team doctor and a former head trainer of Franklin’s meddling in medical decisions.

After the stunning verdict was handed down against her clients, the jury filed out and Judge Andrew Dowling gaveled the case to a close, Bouchard turned on a heel and strode out of the courtroom. She kept right on walking, ignoring a PennLive reporter’s questions seeking comment.

Dr. Black, Lynch’s boss at Penn State Health who delivered the news the orthopedic surgeon was being replaced in his Penn State Athletics roles, also declined comment. Lynch sued Black personally, along with Penn State Health, which is still Lynch’s employer.

But it was Franklin whose hands were all over the doctor’s dismissal, Lynch’s attorney, Steven Marino, argued throughout the trial.

EARLIER:

• Current Penn State doctor sat in cold tub with players, gave weight room tours
• Saquon Barkley tells his “best” James Franklin story at fired Penn State doc’s trial

A similar situation occurred in 2013 when then-football doctor and director of athletic medicine Wayne Sebastianelli was unceremoniously forced out by then-head coach Bill O’Brien. According to testimony undisputed by either side, the head coach wanted Sebastianelli gone, so he was gone. Black testified he argued for his colleague to no avail. Ironically, Sebastianelli was re-appointed to replace Lynch in March, 2019.

Marino also demonstrated through his cross examination of Sebastianelli that before the doctor was re-appointed to the Penn State posts, he met with Franklin at the coach’s house. This suggested the head coach signed off on the team doctor switch before it became official with Dr. Black’s actions at Penn State Health.

Sebastianelli’s odyssey in being fired and then re-hired seemed to set a precedent for the jury that at Penn State, head coaches – not orthopedic department directors or even vast health systems – call the shots when it comes to hiring and firing team doctors.

When it came to Lynch’s ouster, Franklin’s hands were much better hidden by the actions and justifications offered up by Dr. Black and Penn State Health, Marino suggested throughout the case.

“They had a pretextual explanation for what the motive was for Lynch’s removal, and obviously the jury didn’t accept it,” Marino told PennLive.

In painstaking examinations of witnesses, Marino pointed to instance after instance of Franklin being frustrated by injured players who weren’t practicing and angry over stars being medically ruled out of games.

There was never anyone who could explain the coach’s intentions, his state of mind. Only Franklin could have done that, and the head coach never took the witness stand, Marino pointed out.

“Why wasn’t Coach Franklin called as a witness? He was a factual witness. He had information that was material to the facts – relevant and material to this case. They chose not to call him,” Marino told PennLive.

Then the lawyer proceeded to answer his own question: “He would certainly have to explain the actions he undertook and his motives for undertaking them. I think they didn’t want to place him in that position. They knew he would be subject to cross examination.”

In her closing, Bouchard said her clients did “nothing wrong” in removing a Hershey-bound football doctor who wasn’t “all-in” on performing his Penn State duties because he was never available in State College full time.

Marino argued Lynch’s dismissal was retaliation for his client’s repeated clashes with Franklin over medical decisions. Black’s and Penn State Health’s explanations for Lynch’s ouster were tantamount to a coverup intended to distance the head coach from the decision to oust the doctor, he said. It was for this reason Marino argued the defendants should be punished with punitive damages.

For an institution like Penn State Health that traffics in hundreds of millions of dollars, Marino expressed disappointment the jury’s verdict fell short of true punishment.

“I was hoping it would be more significant than that,” Marino told PennLive. “I’m not satisfied. That’s not going to change Hershey Medical Center’s behavior. That’s the cost of doing business.”

As for Penn State’s head coach, what does the verdict mean for him?

Asked if the jury’s decision represented a loss for Franklin, Marino said, “I don’t know how to comment on that. Coach Franklin wasn’t my target.”

Yet, the plaintiff’s lawyer and his aggressive case constantly put the head coach directly in their crosshairs.

Employers who violate the law should be held accountable. If you were wrongfully terminated because of discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, or another unlawful reason, Marino Associates is prepared to investigate your claim, preserve critical evidence, and aggressively pursue the compensation and justice you deserve. Call ( (215) 462-3200 or complete our online contact form to speak with an experienced wrongful termination attorney today. Your case consultation is free.