I got into it at trial with a neuropsychologist.

Here’s the background. Our client had a number of prior head injuries. She hadn’t been diagnosed with concussions. But the prerequisites were there (confusion, feeling “not right,” dizziness, etc.).

This was important because a history of concussion (1) makes you more susceptible to another concussion and (2) increases the risk you’re going to have persistent symptoms.

Back to the story: The neuropsychologist was super rigid about these events not being diagnosed as concussions. So I said let’s assume that they weren’t “actual” concussions but, instead, were a series of sub-concussive events.

She said that there was no such thing as a sub-concussive event. And went on to suggest it was a term that I made up.

That, I suspect, was her undoing in the eyes of the jury.

Why? Because there is a ton of literature that specifically discusses the hazards of repeated sub-concussive events.

Of special concern to me, there is a study from the Columbia Department of Radiology entitled: Soccer Heading Linked to Measurable Decline of Brain Structure and Function Over Two Years.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Boxing has also been studied. And there’s been a lot of research about the effects of driving certain vehicles, flying planes and operating boats. It goes on and on.

Bottom line: Just like it’s in the public consciousness that people with a history of concussions do worse after another one, it’s soon going too be general knowledge that sub-concussive exposure creates the same kind of risk factor.