The NeuroPsych Eval... The Final Report is Just The Beginning

In a TBI case, the neuropsychological evaluation isn't just a clinical exam. It's a set of controlled clinical instruments introduced into a legal fight where both sides understand exactly what the data can do.

This episode covers a 2025 New York case where the chess match started before anyone sat down for testing. The way the eval request was written, no neuropsychologist would agree to conduct it. What happened next is a clinic in how raw data access, validity measure interpretation, and the clinical community's own gatekeeping rules shape who controls the narrative in a brain injury case.

The report is what the evaluator decided. The raw data is what they saw when they decided it. Those aren't the same thing.

If you have a TBI case with a neuropsych eval in it, the report you received is the beginning of the clinical conversation... not the end of it.

Link to work with me is in the show notes. My availability is limited.

The information provided in this podcast, and any associated materials—including our e-books and templates—is for educational and informational purposes only. 

While we strive to provide the most accurate and current data available at the time of release, science and law are constantly evolving. 

This content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, nor does it constitute legal advice or the establishment of an expert-witness relationship. 

For Attorneys: Always consult with a qualified medical expert regarding the specific facts of your case. For the General Public: Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. 

Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have heard on this show. 

Reliance on any information provided by Linda Acker, FNP, or Clear Advantage LNC is solely at your own risk.

https://clearadvantagelnc.com/

LindaAckerFNP@ClearAdvantageLNC.com

209-560-6414

Transcript

Introduction

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hey guys, welcome back and thanks for joining me this week. I'm Linda, the Lawyer's NP, and before we get started today, just a quick note. I work with attorneys who are actively invested in improving how they handle the clinical sides of their cases. Not every attorney is the right fit for that. If you are, reach out early. Links in the show notes. Today we're going to talk about something that happens in TBI cases that looks like a legal fight on the surface, but it's actually a clinical chest match underneath. It's about the neuropsychological eval, what it is, what it produces, why both sides will try really hard to control it, and what's actually at stake when they do. There's a 2025 New York case that illustrates this beautifully. I'm going to walk through it with you today. Again, this shows for informational and educational purposes only. See the show notes for the full professional disclosure. When someone claims a traumatic brain injury, one of the most powerful clinical tools available is the neuropsych eval. It's not a scan. It's not a blood test. It's a carefully constructed series of standardized tests administered by a licensed neuropsychologist that measures how the brain is actually functioning. It tests memory, processing speed, attention, executive function, language, visual spatial reasoning. And each test is designed to detect patterns of deficit that map to specific types of brain injury. Here's the part that sets up everything else. These tests are clinically protected. The actual instruments, the stimuli, the tasks, they are all controlled by the psychological community for a very specific reason. The moment a patient has been exposed to test content, the test isn't valid for that patient. You can't administer a standardized evaluation to someone who already knows what's coming. So when a neuropsy valve enters a legal case, you're not just ordering a clinical exam. You're introducing a set of highly controlled clinical instruments into a fight where both sides understand exactly what the data can do to a case. That's where the chess match starts. So in this case, a woman was injured in a car accident. She claimed a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and traumatic brain injury. The defense wants their own neuropsych eval. Standard move in a TBI case, right? But the way the eval request was written, no neuropsychologist would agree to do it. Whether that was intentional or not, the clinical effect was the same. No evaluator means no defense neuropsych expert. And in a case where the entire injury is a brain injury, that's a significant gap. The plaintiff counsel recognized the move and countered. She'll bring the client in for evaluation, but when it's done, the testing materials and the raw data come back to the plaintiff's clinical team. Of course, the defense pushback, because handing over those materials is not a small ask clinically. Just a quick note the language on a neuropsych eval request determines who will agree to conduct it and under what clinical conditions. This is not a procedural detail. It's a clinical decision with strategic consequences. The wording of that request is the first move on the board. So the clinical reality that drives everything in this case is this. A neuropsych eval produces two things. The report is the clinician's written interpretation and the conclusions they reached about how the brain is functioning. The raw data is everything that actually happened during the test. Every subtest score, every response, every pattern across dozens of measures. The report is what the evaluator decided. The raw data is what they saw when they decided it. And here's where the chess match gets interesting. Two neuropsychologists can look at the exact same raw scores and reach completely different conclusions. Not because one of them is dishonest, because clinical interpretation is not a math problem. It's a judgment call. And judgment calls are shaped by what the clinician is looking for and how they weigh, what they find. A defense neuropsychologist and a plaintiff's neuropsychologist are not starting from the same clinical posture. That doesn't make either one wrong. It just makes the raw data that much more important. Because without it, you're arguing against a conclusion you can't examine at its foundation. You're being told what the evaluator decided without being able to see what they actually saw. And embedded in most of those neuropsych evals are validity measures. Those are tests within the test, designed to detect whether the patient's performing below their actual ability. How those measures are scored and interpreted is often where the malingering arguments get built or dismantled. That analysis lives in the raw data. Without it, you can't challenge or defend it at the clinical level it deserves. So back to our case. After rounds of back and forth, the case landed on a solution that's actually clinically beautiful. The plaintiff's clinical team gets the testing material and the raw data. But those materials can only go to a licensed psychologist or neuropsychologist. That restriction isn't arbitrary. The tests stay protected so they remain scientifically valid for future use. The clinical community remains the gatekeeper, but within that boundary, the plaintiff's experts get to examine the foundation, not just the conclusion. That's the most appropriate clinical outcome. A fair evaluation of any expert's conclusion requires access to what those conclusions are actually based on. In neuropsychology, that means the raw data. Without it, you're not doing a clinical review. You're doing a summary review. Those aren't the same thing. The defense kept pushing back, and the courts kept affirming. The case is still going. If you have a TBI case with a neuropsych eval in it, the report you receive is the beginning of the clinical conversation, not the end of it. The patterns and the raw data, how the validity measures were administered and scored, whether the testing battery was actually appropriate for this type of injury, whether the conclusions in the report hold up against what the scores show, those questions require someone who understands what they're looking at. I know what to look for. That part stays with me. What I can tell you is that a neuropsych report without clinical eyes on the data underneath it is an incomplete picture. And in a case where the entire injury is a question of how someone's brain is functioning, incomplete just isn't good enough. This case is still in motion. What happens at trial will depend in part on what those clinical documents actually show when a qualified expert examines them properly. That's the fight inside the fight. It's happening in TBI cases all the time. Most attorneys experience it as a discovery dispute. What it actually is is a clinical chess match where the pieces are data and the board is a human brain. Alright, I want to say something to the attorneys and paralegals who've been here since the beginning. Thank you for being here with me, and I want you to hear it here first. Something is coming. It's accredited, and it's built for legal teams who understand that the clinical side of the case is just as important as the legal strategy. I'm not ready to share details yet, but if you've been listening, you already know the standard I hold my work to. Like I said, you'll hear it here first when it's ready. That's all for now. Stay medical legal ready and see you on the next episode.