| p>When health care professionals are attempting to | | | | supervisors and anyone that can attest to the plaintiff's |
| confirm or assess cognitive impairment in a brain injury | | | | level of cognitive functioning before the accident. |
| victim, they will often refer a patient for | | | | In head injury or MTBI cases the defense will most |
| neuropsychological testing. In the San Francisco Bay | | | | certainly retain a neuropsychologist. The defense |
| Area we are fortunate to have several excellent | | | | expert's opinion may fall into one of two camps. First, |
| hospitals and medical centers that treat brain injury | | | | no brain injury exits because the plaintiff's scores fall |
| victims. This includes San Francisco General Hospital's | | | | within the "normal" range. There are two problems with |
| neurotrauma unit as well as the University of California, | | | | this assertion - how would the plaintiff have scored |
| San Francisco. | | | | pre-trauma and with high functioning individuals this |
| Neuorpsychological testing is a series of tests, | | | | assertion is simply invalid. It is perfectly possible to have |
| performed by a trained neuropsychologist, that can be | | | | an individual with superior levels of premorbid |
| used to identify specific deficits in brain function. Over | | | | functioning score within a "normal" range but at the |
| the past decade neuropsychological testing has | | | | same time have a deterioration attributable to a head |
| become a very focused science. It is also very useful | | | | injury. |
| to a personal injury attorney when representing a brain | | | | The next defense assertion will be that if the data |
| injury victim. | | | | does indeed show impairment, then the plaintiff must |
| In head injury or MTBI cases, as well as traumatic brain | | | | be a liar or there is the presence of secondary gain to |
| injury cases (TBI), I have worked with | | | | explain the scores. This opinion is subject to attack, |
| neuropsychologists that have administered such testing | | | | however, due to the lack of baseline information and |
| and that have evaluated neuropsychological testing | | | | any other relevant information from which to |
| data as well. | | | | corroborate this assertion. In other words, if the plaintiff |
| If your client is referred for neuropsychological testing | | | | has been truthful about all other aspects of her case |
| you may wish to retain a neuropsychologist to review | | | | and treatment, how can the expert make this |
| the testing results and additional information in order to | | | | conclusion? The answer is he can't - it's a leap of faith |
| opine on the presence of a head injury or MTBI and its | | | | and should be the subject of a motion to strike at trial. |
| relevance to any cognitive impairment. If your client is | | | | Brain injury or head injury cases are complex just like |
| not referred for neuropsychological testing you may | | | | brain injuries. Neuropsychological testing can help both |
| wish to retain such an expert to perform the tests. | | | | brain injury attorneys and a brain injury victims in their |
| For either of these tasks it is extremely important for | | | | case and treatment. And there are excellent |
| your neurophychologist to have the appropriate | | | | resources in the San Francisco area to utilize in both |
| background information from which a baseline of the | | | | treating and representing brain injury victims. Do the |
| injury victim's functioning can be discerned and | | | | extra work, make sure your expert has the relevant |
| evaluated. This is accomplished by reviewing school | | | | information from which a baseline assessment can be |
| records, academic and aptitude tests scores, speaking | | | | created, and do not allow defense expert opinions to |
| with friends, family members, coworkers, colleagues, | | | | go unchallenged. Good luck! |