Forensic Update From the Desk of Sam Goldstein
I often face the daunting challenge of discerning how pre-existing cognitive, psychiatric, and physical challenges influence the nature of accidental injuries, impairments, and outcomes in the complex realm of forensic matters, particularly in cases related to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). This intricate task requires a nuanced understanding of how preexisting conditions or injuries (PECI) can interact with new injuries, thereby complicating diagnosis, treatment, and ultimately, legal adjudication. This task is not merely medical/psychological but also profoundly legal, as the implications of these determinations can significantly affect the outcome of civil litigation and compensation claims.
TBI cases are inherently challenging due to the brain's complexity and the variable nature of brain injuries. When PECI are present, the challenge intensifies. These conditions can range from mild cognitive impairments to significant psychiatric disorders or physical disabilities, each adding layers of complexity to the assessment of the injury's impact. The crux of the issue lies in distinguishing the effects of the traumatic event from the baseline state of the individual, a task that requires not only expertise but also an understanding of forensic principles.
Forensic neuropsychology experts must navigate this labyrinth, evaluating the extent to which a TBI has exacerbated pre-existing conditions or introduced new conditions and impairments. This process involves a detailed review of medical histories, careful interpretation of symptoms, and an assessment of the individual's functional status both before and after the injury. Moreover, the role of these experts extends beyond the medical/psychological sphere, as their findings hold significant weight in legal proceedings, influencing judgments on liability, damages, and compensation.
Understanding the interplay between pre-existing challenges and TBI outcomes is not only a matter of scientific inquiry but also a crucial aspect of delivering justice. As such, it demands a comprehensive approach that combines medical knowledge, forensic acumen, and a compassionate understanding of the individuals affected. This month’s article aims to explore these challenges, offering insights into the methodologies and considerations essential for navigating the complex terrain of forensic matters involving TBI and pre-existing conditions.
The narrative of Elissa Adams and her pursuit of justice post-auto accident encapsulates a dilemma faced by juries across the nation: the evaluation of civil cases involving PECI (Elissa Adams v. Allstate County Mutual Insurance, First District of Texas Court of Appeals, No. 01-19-00451-CV (August 20, 2020)). While, Adams's case, like many, hinged on the causation and severity of her injuries, it also highlighted the jurors' complex role in deciphering medical evidence and determining the extent of compensation.
Adams's ordeal began on a routine car trip from Midland to Lubbock, Texas. The sudden crash left her with a concussion and various injuries. The subsequent treatment for concussion-related symptoms, including severe headaches, revealed a medical history that became the focal point of her civil claim against the defendant. The case unfolded with treater and expert testimonies debating the causation of her headaches, leading to a jury award that compensated Adams for past but not future damages.
At the heart of the Adams case, and many similar legal battles, lies the jurors' interpretation of causation in the context of PECI. Jurisprudence allows for compensation even when an individual has a preexisting condition; however, the extent to which this condition influences the current injuries and their severity is often debatable. In fact, I decline to provide fixed numbers when I am asked to apportion causation as I believe there is no reasonable and reasoned method to do so fairly in such cases. This is especially true because many pre-existing conditions increase injury related vulnerability and often adversely affect recovery. Instead, I will opine with descriptive language (e.g., very significant) as to the impact accident caused injuries have had on the plaintiff’s quality of life (e.g., they could work prior to the accident but no longer can do so).
The characteristics of the PECI, its presentation at trial, mainly through treater and expert testimony, and jurors' general and specific perceptions significantly influence juror decisions in civil cases. The nature of the PECI, whether it is a physical injury or a psychological condition, and whether it is acute or chronic, plays a crucial role in how jurors view its legitimacy and severity. This can lead jurors to question the direct impact of the defendant's conduct on the plaintiff's current condition.
During the jury trial, Adams’s treating physician served as an expert witness testifying about the cause and severity of her injuries. He noted that despite Adams’s prior history of headaches, he believed the car accident caused her current headaches. The physician also testified that a neurosurgeon had performed surgery years before her car accident resolving her headaches. However, the defense retained medical expert expressed skepticism regarding the cause of the headaches, citing the headaches she experienced before the accident and questioned the appropriateness of the specific tests conducted by Adams’s physician to best determine causation. Thus, the defense expert was unconvinced that Adams needed future compensation for her headaches. Perhaps due to the conflicting testimony, the jury awarded Adams $87,787.37 for her past damages but nothing for future damages.
How PECI is portrayed during the trial, especially through the insights of experts who interpret medical and related data and clarify causation, sways jurors' opinions significantly. The credibility of these experts, alongside the clarity of their testimony and the diagnostic methods employed, are vital in shaping the jury's view. Additionally, jurors enter the deliberation room with their own biases and beliefs, which may affect their judgment. Some may perceive PECI as diminishing the defendant's liability or believe it should not influence the causation of new injuries. Others might view PECI as a character flaw or attribute it to the plaintiff's negligence, impacting their decisions regarding awards.
The appeal process in Adams's case further underscores the discretionary power of juries in civil litigation involving PECI. The Texas Court of Appeals' decision to uphold the denial for a new trial was based on precedent allowing juries to resolve evidence conflicts and determine the causation and extent of injuries. This judicial discretion is necessary but also calls into question how such decisions are made and whether they align with the principles of justice.
The Role of Psychology in Juror Decision-Making
The psychology of juror decision-making is an area ripe for exploration, particularly in PECI cases. How do jurors distinguish between the worsening of an existing condition and the onset of new injuries? What psychological mechanisms are at play when jurors assess the credibility of expert witnesses or the plaintiff's testimony? These are vital questions that remain to be thoroughly researched. I wrote about these issues in a recent Forensic Update (The Humanity of Justice).
The influence of erroneous perceptions or biases on jury decisions could lead to unjust outcomes, where plaintiffs are either unfairly compensated or deprived of due recovery. Psychological research has the potential to uncover the cognitive biases at play and suggest ways to mitigate their impact, ensuring fairer trials and more just outcomes.
Conclusions
The Adams case illustrates the convoluted interplay between medical and neuropsychological evidence, juror perceptions, and judicial discretion. While the law provides a framework for addressing PECI in civil litigation, the nuances of each case present unique challenges to the jurors charged with rendering a verdict. As such, there is a need for deeper psychological insights into juror decision-making to understand better and guide this complex process. The goal must always be to align legal processes with the principles of fairness and justice, ensuring that each verdict truly reflects the case's merits, uninfluenced by bias or misperception.
In my forensic assessments, addressing the challenge of PECI requires a multidimensional strategy that emphasizes thoroughness, impartiality, and the application of a scientific methodology. Recognizing the profound impact of PECI on case outcomes, my approach involves a comprehensive review of the claimant's medical, psychiatric and vocational history, seeking an understanding of their baseline functional status before the incident in litigation. I also seek out input from family members, employees and friends regarding their personal views of the plaintiff’s pre- and post-accident functioning. In some cases, I include their words verbatim in my report. I then integrate these all of these sources of data with my direct examination.
Furthermore, I maintain an ongoing commitment to professional development, staying abreast of advances in forensic neuropsychology and legal standards governing PECI assessments. As I have written previously, (Beware of Pseudoscience) I am conscious of the risks of pseudo-science influencing my decision-making process. By adopting this comprehensive approach, I strive to contribute to a fair legal process, where my opinions are informed by accurate, objective, and clearly communicated foundation. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that each assessment I conduct or contribute to upholds the highest standards of fairness and justice, reflecting the true merit of each case, while minimizing the influence of biases or misconceptions.
◆
