Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Litigation Complexity of Posttraumatic Headaches

  • Concussion and Head Injury (A Finkel, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Pain and Headache Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review explores the workings of the legal process in posttraumatic headache (PTH) claims by discussing representative court cases, the approaches taken by both plaintiff and defense attorneys in evaluating a client with PTH, and the role of the expert witness. This discussion also examines the question of whether or not litigation prolongs the symptoms of PTH and concussion, looking at the issues of malingering and the psychological effect of litigation.

Recent Findings

Litigation prolongs recovery of PTH, primarily not from malingering but rather due to the psychological mindset of the plaintiff as created by the litigation process.

Summary

Just as the medical community struggles with PTH diagnosis, mechanism, and treatment, the legal system grapples with identifying valid claims for PTH. Psychological support is an important component for PTH recovery to more effectively deal with the psychological impact of litigation and the concept of perceived injustice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Upon request.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Rothrock JF. The medicolegal aspects of headache medicine. Headache. 2008;48:855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. • Evans RW, Strutt A. Medico-legal aspects of concussion. Headache. 2020;60:1749–60 This paper is a good overview of concussion and PTH, addressing the pertinent issues that arise in the medical-legal arena in a question-answer format.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Westlaw database search for “headache complaints” www.westlaw.com. Accessed on November 5, 2020.

  4. Westlaw database search for “post-traumatic headaches” www.westlaw.com. Accessed on November 5, 2020.

  5. Lachney v. Automotive Casualty Insurance Company, 647 So.2d 645 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1999).

  6. Mikulec v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 2009 WL 10681943 (W.D. New York 2009).

  7. Lincoln Hockey, LLC v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 831 A.2d 913 (DC Ct. App 2003).

  8. Metrejean v. Prudential Insurance Company, 761 So.2d 198-2170 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1999)

  9. DeBofsky M. Objective medical information for claims. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. 2015.

  10. Miller R. Settlement value of headaches in personal injury cases, Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog; 2020. https://www.marlandinjurylawyerblog.com/settlement_value_of_headaches_1.html. Accessed 3 Nov 2020.

  11. Gladstone J. Posttraumatic headaches. In: Hubbard J, Hodge SD, editors. Head trauma and brain injury for lawyers. Chicago: ABA publishing; 2016. chapter 8. p. 189–209.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Russo A, D’Onofrio F, Conte F, Petretta V, Tedeschi G, Tessitore A. Post-traumatic headaches: a clinical overview. Neurol Sci. 2014;35:153–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Woodward B, Kendall G, Dayton K. Pitfalls of oversimplified headache diagnosis in TBI litigation. Brain Inj. 1997;11:26–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalgia. 2018;38:1–211.

  15. Solomon S. Chronic post-traumatic headache – understanding the complexities and treatment options. US Neurology. 2010;6(1):78–81. https://doi.org/10.17925/USN.2010.06.01.78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Casale M. More than a headache: how the application of New York’s no-fault threshold has effectively eliminated head injury plaintiffs’ chances of recovery. Albany Law J Sci Technol. 2013;23:446–79.

    Google Scholar 

  17. • Casper ST. Concussion: a history of science and medicine, 1870-2005. Headache. 2018;58:795–810 An excellent historical review of concussion concepts and beliefs.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hall C. Social security disability practice. Part II. The medical basis for determination of disability – a lawyer’s perspective, Chapter 7, section 7.60. Headaches. Westlaw. Thompson Reuters; 2016

  19. Jurewicz RM. Traumatic brain injury – a plaintiff’s perspective. In: Hubbard J, Hodge SD, editors. Head trauma and brain injury for lawyers. Chicago: ABA Publishing; 2016; chapter 21. p. 505–27.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hodge S, Cohen A. The physician as expert Witness. 21 No. 1 Practical Litigator 25 2010.

  21. American Academy of Neurology. Qualifications and guidelines for the physician expert witness. https://www.aan.com/globals/axon/assets/2687.pdf. Accessed November 9, 2020.

  22. Friedman HJ. The roles of experts and litigation support consultants in medical-legal claims. NeuroRehabilitation. 2001;16:123–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Joseph v. District of Columbia Bd. Of Medicine, 587 A.2d 1085 (D.C. Ct. App. 1991).

  24. • Evans RW, Ghosh K. A survey of neurologists on postconcussion syndrome. Headache. 2018;58:836–44 This paper presents a revealing contemporary survey of neurologists’ attitudes and perspectives regarding the persistence of postconcussion symptoms, including PTH.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Packard RC. Posttraumatic headache: permanency and relationship to legal settlement. Headache. 1992;32:496–500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kamins J, Charles A. Posttraumatic headache: basic mechanisms and therapeutic targets. Headache. 2018;58:811–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. The impact of compensation on health outcomes and recovery, Compensation and Health Outcomes. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/disability-support/report/34-disability-support-appendixj.pdf. Accessed November 6, 2020.

  28. Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD, Peloso PM, et al. Prognosis for mild traumatic brain injury: results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. J Rehabil Med. 2004;suppl.43:84–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hanks RA, Rapport LJ, Seagly K, Millis SR, Scott C, Pearson C. Outcomes after Concussion Recovery Education: Effects of litigation and disability status on maintenance of symptoms. J Neurotrauma. 2018;36:554–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2018.5873.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Binder LM, Rohling ML. Money matters: a meta-analytic review of the effects of financial incentives on recovery after closed-head injury. Am J Psychiatry. 1996;153:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Covington EC. Psychogenic pain – what it means, why it does not exist, and how to diagnose it. Pain Med. 2000;1:287–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR. Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine. 1995;20:3S–73S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Formisano R, Bivona U, Catani S, D’Ippolito M, Buzzi MG. Post-traumatic headache: facts and doubts. J Headache Pain. 2009;10:145–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Obermann M, Keidel M, Diener H-C. Post-traumatic headache: Is it for Real? Crossfire debates on headache: Pro. Headache. 2010;50:710–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01644.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Vanderploeg RD, Belanger HG, Kaufman PM. Nocebo effects and mild traumatic brain injury: legal implications. Psychol Inj Law. 2014;7:245–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Miller L. Not just malingering: Syndrome diagnosis in traumatic brain injury litigation. NeuroRehabilitation. 2001;16:109–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. McBeath JG. Labeling of postconcussion patients as malingering and litigious: a common practice in need of criticism. Headache. 2000;40:609–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Evans RW. Persistent post-traumatic headache, postconcussion syndrome, and whiplash injuries: the evidence for a non-traumatic basis with an historical review. Headache. 2010;50:716–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Andrikopoulos J. F84. Post-traumatic headache in mild head injured patients. Headache. 2003;43:554.

    Google Scholar 

  40. • Jacobs MS. Psychological factors influencing chronic pain and the impact of litigation. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 2013;1:135–41 This paper provides excellent psychological insights into chronic pain and how it is negatively affected by ongoing litigation.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Iverson GL, Silverberg N, Lange RT, Zasler ND. Conceptualizing outcome from mild traumatic brain injury. In: Zasler ND, Katz DI, Zafonte RD, editors. Brain Injury Medicine. Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Demos Medical; 2013; chapter 30. p. 470–97.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Weissman HN. Distortions and deceptions in self presentation: effects of protracted litigation on personal injury cases. Behav Sci Law. 1990;8:67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. . Carriere JS, Pimentel SD, Yakobov E, Edwards RR. A systematic review of the association between perceived injustice and pain-related outcomes in individuals with musculoskeletal pain. Pain Med. 2020;21:1449–63 This paper discusses the concept of perceived injustice which perpetuates painful symptoms resulting from injury. Many patients with PTH ruminate on this notion, either subconsciously or consciously, prolonging their symptoms and disability.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Jack E. Hubbard

  2. Plymouth, MN, USA

    Jack E. Hubbard

  3. Temple University Fox School of Business and the Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Samuel D. Hodge Jr

Authors
  1. Jack E. Hubbard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel D. Hodge Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.E. Hubbard—conception and design; drafting and final revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content. S.D. Hodge—drafting/revision of the manuscript for content, including legal writing for content

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jack E. Hubbard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Jack E. Hubbard—serves as expert witness and consultant in medical-legal cases. Samuel D. Hodge, Jr.—serves as a mediator and neutral arbitrator for The Dispute Resolution Institute and is paid for speaking engagements.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Concussion and Head Injury

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hubbard, J.E., Hodge, S.D. The Litigation Complexity of Posttraumatic Headaches. Curr Pain Headache Rep 25, 39 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-021-00954-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-021-00954-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation