New Imaging Studies for Brain Injuries: Are They Peer Reviewed or Scientifically Reliable?

January 3rd, 2011
By: Bancroft McGavin Horvath & Judkins

The Virginia Lawyers Weekly had a blog and article posted recently regarding plaintiff’s bar advocating new imaging tests to prove brain injuries. The article quoted John D. McGavin, Esquire on behalf of the defense who advised that these tests should still be challenged and questioned.  He was quoted as follows:

“Defense lawyers caution the new tests don’t close the door on disputes in brain injury claims. For one thing, said John D. McGavin of Fairfax, the science is new and may still be subject to challenge in court. “I’m not sure it’s yet reached the stage of being fully peer-reviewed,” he said.

One concern, McGavin said, is false positives. He noted that earlier imaging advances, such as MRIs and CT scans, turned up evidence that many people without symptoms nonetheless had findings consistent with spinal problems. He said it’s important to develop baselines for normally functioning brains and valid means for comparison to studies of similar resolution.”

The bottom line for the defense — such new imaging studies need to be challenged and questioned and verified as scientifically reliable and peer reviewed.

The entire blog/article can be reviewed at:


This blog and the information provided has been prepared by Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C. (“BMHJ”) for information purposes only and is not intended nor to be construed as legal advice. This blog may contain the opinions of the members and associates of this firm on various legal issues and is not legal advice. Read More