Could be a case of not getting the same support as some other knights players.
Compensation for injuries is a murky business and lawyers love making money from it.
You only have to take the McKinnon incident for example.
The League held charity fund raising events.
The Knights bent over backwards on it.
The Nrl and Knights guaranteed him a job for life
but last I heard he was sueing his tackler, the knights and Nrl.
The top Players get paid a motza over a 10 to 12yr period compared to joe average who also has to take out his own insurance and health cover.
The lower echelon of players might have a cause for complaint if their careers end early due to injury and suffer effects of their body wearing out but they are not on their pat Malone.
A lot of workers in a variety of jobs have their bodies wear out early but don't sue their employer
The Nrl boys get a handy sum paid into their retirement fund during their careers but not many seem to take steps for a post footy career.
A bit each way on this one. We know players are reluctant to leave the field and don't always tell medical staff the truth.
They also want to play each week - ie not lose their spot.
BUT - medical staff have to have the power to say - NO - he must sit a week out. What would a coach say if - say - in the NQ - the medical guy told Green - JT can't play this week. AND - it was an extremely important game. JT wants to play. The coach wants him to play. But the medical people say it could (not is - just could) be detrimental to his health.
Who wins the argument ? A bit like a boxer who wants that last fight - when he should have rested. He cops the unlucky punch (tackle) and is knocked out. Who is to blame ?
If it is a single blatant action - a foul - he could well have cause to sue the player. Especially if the player was charged by the NRL.
I'm not sure the NRL is at fault - or the club - for allowing someone to play the game they want to play. They sign a contract - they know the risks. They make the decision to play.