Judge Tosses IU Abuse Lawsuit With One Catch

Federal judge dismisses long-standing abuse claims against Indiana University, citing statute limitations, but leaves room for state-level pursuit.

In a significant legal development, a federal judge has dismissed the case brought by former Indiana men’s basketball players against Indiana University (IU) and former head trainer Tim Garl. The lawsuit revolved around allegations of inappropriate and invasive rectal exams conducted by former team physician Brad Bomba Sr., who served from 1979 to 1998.

The case was initially brought to light by former players Haris Mujezinovic and Charlie Miller in October 2024. They claimed that IU and Garl were aware of Bomba Sr.'s misconduct and failed to address the complaints appropriately.

However, the Southern Indiana District Court ruled in favor of the defendants, citing that the federal claims were filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiffs contended that the statute of limitations should begin when they recognized the exams as harassment in 2024 and 2025, but Judge Tonya Walton Pratt disagreed, stating they were aware of the injury at the time of the incidents.

The court also decided to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, meaning these claims can be refiled and addressed in an Indiana state court. This decision opens the door for the plaintiffs to pursue their case further at the state level.

Allegations against Bomba Sr. surfaced in September 2024, when Mujezinovic accused him of misconduct. The lawsuit was filed shortly after, initially targeting IU and later including Garl in January 2025. John Flowers and Larry Richardson Jr. joined the lawsuit in early 2025, with several other former players also alleging misconduct by Bomba Sr.

An investigation conducted by Jones Day, a law firm hired by IU, concluded that Bomba Sr.'s actions were "clinically appropriate" and not conducted in "bad faith or with an improper purpose," according to their report issued in May 2025. This finding has been a point of contention for the plaintiffs, who continue to seek justice and accountability for the alleged misconduct.