I recently wrote about $975,000.00 settlement that I obtained on behalf of a client who sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of a motor vehicle collision. As a result of the case resolving, the trial court never was called upon to decide two outstanding motions that had been filed with regard to the introduction of a PET scan and whether neuropsychological testing was objective. At the suggestion of my client’s physician, my client underwent a PET scan at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, which was interpreted by one of the country’s leading experts, Monte Buchsbaum, M.D. Dr. Buchsbaum opinion was that the PET scan objectively documented the subjective complaints of my client. Defendant moved to bar the introduction of that PET scan arguing that PET scans to diagnose traumatic brain injury was not scientifically valid. This was an interesting argument in that defendant’s own PET scan expert, Ronald Van Heertum, M.D., who is chairman of the PET laboratory at Columbia Presbyterian did not support defendant’s legal argument. While Dr. Van Heertum, not surprisingly, disagreed with Dr. Buchsbaum’s interpretation of the PET scan, he did not join in defense counsel’s argument that the PET scan was not scientifically valid to diagnose mild traumatic brain injury. In opposing the motion, I was able to locate an affidavit prepared by Ronald S. Tikofsky, M.D. who co-authored a textbook entitled “Functional Cerebral SPECT and PET Imaging” with Dr. Van Heertum. Along with this affidavit, I was able to obtain affidavits from other leading experts in the field, all supporting the clinical use of PET to diagnose traumatic brain injury. Also undecided was my motion to declare that neuropsychological testing is objective as a matter of law. In support of my motion, I demonstrated that the American Academy of Neurology’s own position paper on neuropsychological testing called it objective. Also, Medicare, in its regulations, has determined neuropsychological testing to be an objective assessment of brain functioning. Just as important, I was able to obtain concessions from defendant’s own neuropsychologist, both in this case and in others where I have deposed him, that neuropsychological testing is objective. While the trial court did not rule on these motions in this case, it is clear to me that there will be future motions on these topics.