Citation

Kaufman NK, Bush SS, Aguilar MR. Psychol. Inj. Law 2019; 12(2): 91-112.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s12207-019-09355-9

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Historically, two divergent positions on the long-term impact of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), also commonly termed concussion (Ruff, Iverson, Barth, Bush, & Broshek, 2009), existed in the scientific literature. One stance was that a relatively small percentage of mTBI patients experience lasting problems for physiogenic (i.e., medically verifiable, neurological, or physical) reasons. The second view was that residual problems arising from mTBI are more psychogenic (i.e., medically unverifiable, non-neurological, or psychological). Uzzell (1999) and Ruff, Camenzuli, and Mueller (1996), for example, were in the former camp, whereas others, including Binder (1997) and Larrabee (1999), leaned away from a neurological causation explanation for residual problems, pending more rigorous scientific investigation. In his cleverly titled presentation from this time period, "Brain Damage Caused by Collision with Forensic Neuropsychologists," Bauer (1997) urged neuropsychologists practicing in the legal arena to think very carefully before opining on a cause-effect relationship between mTBI and later impairment...

Language: en