INDIANAPOLIS — A federal judge has dismissed a high-profile class-action lawsuit filed by former Indiana University men’s basketball players who alleged they were subjected to sexually abusive medical examinations decades ago.
In a ruling issued on March 31, 2026, U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt determined that the legal claims were barred by a two-year statute of limitations that had expired long before the suit was filed in 2024.
The lawsuit was spearheaded by former players Haris Mujezinovic and Charlie Miller, who represented a larger group of athletes from the 1980s and 1990s. The plaintiffs alleged that the late team physician, Dr. Brad Bomba Sr., subjected them to “medically unnecessary, invasive, and sexually abusive” rectal examinations during their time in the program.
The legal action named the Trustees of Indiana University and longtime head trainer Tim Garl as defendants, claiming the university failed to protect the athletes from the physician’s conduct.
Judge Pratt’s decision centered on the timeline of the events. While the plaintiffs argued they did not fully realize the exams constituted sexual abuse until 2024, the court rejected the request to “toll” (pause) the statute of limitations.
The judge noted that the players themselves admitted the doctor’s behavior was “widely known among university staff” during the era in question. Consequently, the court ruled that the players had “complete causes of action” between 1981 and 2000. By waiting until 2024 to pursue litigation, the claims fell decades outside the allowable legal window.
The dismissal was issued “with prejudice,” a legal term meaning the Title IX and civil rights complaints cannot be refiled in this court.
Before the lawsuit, Indiana University commissioned an independent investigation by the law firm Jones Day. That investigation reached a different conclusion than the plaintiffs, stating that while Dr. Bomba’s examination methods were “uncommon,” there was no evidence the physician acted in “bad faith” or with predatory intent.
The university has consistently maintained that it acted appropriately based on the medical standards and information available at that time.
The legal battle may not be entirely over. The plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of the ruling to file an appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the former players choose to appeal, a higher court will review Judge Pratt’s application of the statute of limitations to determine if the case deserves to be heard on its merits despite the decades-long delay.
