Neuropsychologists diagnose traumatic brain injury.

Full Abstract

The case of John versus Im (2002) stands for the proposition that clinical neuropsychologists are not qualified to diagnose traumatic brain injury. This ruling by the Supreme Court of Virginia prohibits neuropsychologists from testifying about these professional conclusions in the courtroom. However, in clinical practice neuropsychologists are often asked to disentangle the relative contribution of brain dysfunction and psychological factors to presenting symptomology. In the proposed submission, the authors provide an analysis of the neuropsychological testimony at issue in John versus Im using the admissibility standards for expert testimony that were established and refined by a trilogy of cases from the Supreme Court of the United States. The paper provides support for the notion that neuropsychological method has an established scientific base of knowledge, standards for clinical competence, and evidence of peer-reviewed acceptance by medical related disciplines. No other scientific discipline has employed a more rigorous methodology for assessing cognitive function and disentangling the relative contributions of brain dysfunction and psychological factors to presenting symptomology. By limiting the testimony of neuropsychologists as to cause of an individual's cognitive impairment, courts will exclude opinions based on scientific research and specialized knowledge that would assist in the trier of fact.

Author information

Author/s: Wade, James B (JB); DeMatteo, David (D); Hart, Robert P (RP);

Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University/Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, USA. jbwade(-atsign-)hsc.vcu.edu

Journal and publication information

Publication Type: Journal Article; Review

Journal: Brain injury : [BI] (Brain Inj), published in England. (Language: eng)

Reference: 2004-Jul; vol 18 (issue 7) : pp 629-43

Dates: Created 2004/06/18; Completed 2004/09/13; Revised 2005/11/16;

PMID: 15204325, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 2/18/2009, IMS Date: )

Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.

External Links for this article
(including full text providers, if available):

Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.

This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.