The influence of victim characteristics on potential jurors' perceptions of brain damage in mild traumatic brain injury.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of victim/plaintiff sex, occupation and intoxication status at the time of injury on potential jurors' judgement about the presence of brain damage in mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). RESEARCH DESIGN: Survey. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: One of eight scenarios describing a MTBI from a motor vehicle accident was presented to 460 participants at a Department of Motor Vehicles. Victim sex, occupation (accountant or cafeteria worker) and alcohol intoxication status at the time of injury (sober or intoxicated) were manipulated across eight scenarios. Participants rated whether the victim's complaints at 6 months post-injury were the result of brain damage. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Ratings were influenced by victim occupation and intoxication status (chi2>5.3, p<0.03), but not the sex of the victim. CONCLUSIONS: The occupational and intoxication status of MTBI victims may influence potential jurors' decision about the presence of brain damage.

Comparison of time and error rates on the trail making test among patients with head injuries, experimental malingerers, patients with suspect effort on testing, and normal controls.

Clinical utility of completion time and performance errors was investigated for the Trail Making Test (TMT; Reitan, 1958). Archival neuropsychological files for patients with mild and moderate/severe head injuries, as well as patients with suspect effort on neuropsychological testing, were examined and compared to controls and experimental malingerers. Time-to-completion scores differentiated the participants who were malingering and who gave suspect effort from those patients with head injuries. There were no differences in error rates among the head-injury groups or controls for either the TMT-A or TMT-B. Errors were also not uncommon among normal controls; 12% and 35% of the controls made at least one error on TMT-A and TMT-B, respectively. However, error rates for both the suspect-effort and malingering groups were inflated on TMT-B as compared to the head-injured and control groups. Results suggest that performance errors on the TMT lack diagnostic utility for persons with head injuries, and time-to-completion is still the best indicator of neuropathology. However, performance errors, in conjunction with inflated time scores on the TMT, may be useful in the assessment of malingering.