How California Juries View Brain Injury Claims Without Visible Head Trauma

Unlike a broken bone, a surgical scar, or other visible wound, a concussion or traumatic brain injury can be invisible to the naked eye. Still, the pain is real for victims and can be life-altering. To make matters worse, when it comes to presenting their case in court, jurors may struggle to understand the extent of the victim’s harm.

We’ll explore how California juries may view brain injury claims despite the victim not having visible head trauma. The article also examines how California brain injury lawyers can win over skeptical jurors by presenting strong evidence and getting justice for their clients in the end.

The challenge of “invisible injuries” in the courtroom

Plaintiffs with brain injuries without visible trauma may face heightened scrutiny by a jury as compared to those with more noticeable injuries. For instance, they may understand the severity of a spinal cord injury or shattered limb, but they may not understand the injuries they can’t see. Jurors may view symptoms like headaches, mood changes, memory loss, or cognitive difficulties as vague or minor.

Some jurors may have this outlook on invisible injuries due to implicit biases. They may assume that a healthy-looking victim must actually be healthy or may assume no traumatic incident took place, and ultimately conclude that the injury isn’t serious.

The idea that some ailments are subjective presents a challenge in personal injury litigation. Here, the victim’s attorney is tasked with convincing jurors to accept the severity of grave injuries both seen and unseen.

Understanding jury skepticism in brain injury cases

In traumatic brain injury (TBI) cases, the court expects convincing evidence to find in favor of the injured victim, especially when the injury or injuries aren’t outwardly visible. Juries are understandably skeptical for a variety of reasons:

Pre-existing biases

Jurors may be untrusting and think people are inclined to exaggerate or fake injuries for financial gain. This bias can be extreme in civil cases involving large damage claims.

Media influence

The media can make brain injuries look like they’re temporary and easy to overcome. This can influence what jurors expect. TV, movies, and even the news often focus on quick recoveries or sensational outcomes, which makes jurors think that severe or long-lasting effects are rare.

Lack of visible harm

Unfortunately, jurors usually want to see obvious head trauma. If a victim doesn’t have bruises, bleeding, or compelling medical scans, jurors may question the legitimacy of a claim.

Conflicting expert testimony

A defense expert who downplays the injury can make the jury confused or doubtful. When jurors hear opposing opinions in conjunction with medical jargon, it can overwhelm them and make it difficult for them to discern which expert is more credible.

Many brain injury lawyers understand there are a multitude of factors behind a jury’s skepticism, so they design their strategies to address these doubts. A sound strategy usually includes providing medical evidence, employing experts for their insight, and sharing the daily impact on the victim’s life.

The role of neuropsychological testing

Neuropsychological testing is one of the most commonly used and most effective tools in brain injury litigation. This type of testing identifies and evaluates several cognitive functions. Neuropsychological testing examines memory, attention span, processing speed, problem-solving ability, and emotional regulation. Test results provide detailed information about how the brain functions after an injury.

Neuropsychological testing can be better for showing signs of harm in mild brain injury cases than MRIs or CT scans. Such scans may come back normal even if a patient is symptomatic. A neuropsychological test can detect subtle cognitive defects that are in line with the challenges of reality. These tests can support the claims that the patient experienced a TBI, and that it is still affecting their brain.

How expert witnesses can help juries understand brain injuries

Brain injury lawyers often rely on experts to help jurors understand what the victim has gone through, even if they look “fine.” Neurologists, neuropsychologists, medical professionals, and even vocational experts can help bridge the gap between symptoms and scientific evidence. These experts are responsible for:

• Explaining TBIs, including how they occur and why symptoms may not be visible
• Interpreting neuropsychological and other test results, and connecting the results to the victim’s symptoms
• Debunk common myths about concussion recovery timelines and visible injuries
• Explain the long-term implications of the brain injury on work, relationships, and day-to-day living

Strategies attorneys may use to educate and persuade jurors

Juror skepticism is difficult, but not impossible to overcome. Brain injury lawyers use a strategic approach that encompasses a range of methods.

Humanizing the victim

Jurors are more likely to believe a claim if they can connect to the victim. In demonstrating how the injury impacts the victim’s job, loved ones, and personality, it can bring the claims to life and make them more relatable.

For example, a victim’s coworker testifies that their high-performing colleague now forgets meetings, struggles to focus during conversations, or becomes easily frustrated, none of which were present before the accident. A reasonable juror would probably have a shift in perception and greater empathy than if they were only presented with intricate medical records and expert testimony.

Using demonstrative evidence

Charts, brain diagrams, testing data, and even animation can be used to show how a concussion affects neural pathways. This kind of demonstrative evidence can visually explain what’s going on in the brain to make complex medical concepts both understandable and memorable.

Highlighting the consistency of symptoms

When medical records, test results, and witness testimony all tell the same story, it becomes harder for jurors to think the claim is overstated or false. Showing timelines that track the victim’s symptoms from the time of the injury to diagnosis and treatment can make the victim and the injury more believable.

Addressing the lack of visible head trauma

An invisible injury doesn’t mean it’s an imaginary injury. Effective legal counsel should address this misconception early on. Educating the jury on how brain injuries often don’t show up on standard imaging and why that doesn’t automatically mean the injury isn’t real reduces the likelihood of jurors making this false correlation.

Why legal presentation matters in brain injury cases

It’s hard to make a convincing TBI case when visible trauma isn’t present. These complicated cases require expertise in law, medicine, and psychology. An experienced brain injury lawyer in California can help you:

• Retain and prepare expert witnesses
• Gather medical evidence
• Develop a compelling narrative
• Counter defense tactics that cause doubt

For a successful outcome, TBI cases require much more than proving an accident occurred. Your attorney must paint a complete picture. These cases demand a presentation that connects scientific medical facts with your story.

Talk to a California brain injury lawyer

Just because you lack visible wounds doesn’t mean a lack of compensation as you recover and adapt. Our team at McNicholas & McNicholas understands how convoluted these situations are and how hard they can be. We aim to build strong, evidence-based TBI claims that convince juries.

We’re here to help you learn about your rights and take the next steps toward recovery and justice. If you or someone you care about needs a brain injury lawyer, contact us to discuss your options.