The Rise Of DTI-MRI Imaging & Its Implications For TBI Cases

12.19.16

Traumatic brain injury (TBI), particularly "mild" TBI (mTBI), is one of the most common neurological disorders affecting millions of Americans every year. In the legal realm, mTBI is notoriously difficult to prove (or, from a defense perspective, to disprove), as much of the analysis is based upon relatively subjective findings of medical experts and the likeability and credibility of the injured plaintiff. For many years, the MRI has been the primary tool to diagnose injuries to the brain which could result in TBI or mTBI claims. More recently, however, some well-funded plaintiff's attorneys have begun to cite and rely upon diffuse tensor imaging (DTI) technology, which is a relatively new technology in neuroimaging.

Cases of mTBI are generally classified by a loss of consciousness or disorientation for less than 30 minutes. It is difficult to diagnose, as MRI scans usually yield normal results, while the injured party continues to experience cognitive problems, including headaches, memory problems and difficulty concentrating. According to various medical studies, DTI, which utilizes MRI technology, is more sensitive to detecting mTBI because it examines damage to the white matter of the brain, whereas MRI scans detect only grey matter injuries. Grey matter abnormalities usually result from direct impact, bruising or tearing of the brain tissue. On the other hand, DTI maps the diffusion process of water through the axons to determine whether the connections have been sheared or damaged as a result of trauma.

The admissibility of DTI tests and expert testimony about DTI is hotly contested and vigorously opposed by defense attorneys as unreliable and unproven. The most common argument raised by defense counsel to preclude such evidence is that the findings are not based upon a "generally accepted standard" by the medical community in diagnosing mTBI as required under either Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), or Frye v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1994), or a state's equivalent standard for admissibility of expert scientific evidence.

While New Jersey and Pennsylvania State Courts have yet to touch upon this issue, the New York State Courts have been considering defendants' Frye motions to bar DTI evidence. Thus far, the record is mixed and uncertain, which does not bode well for defendants. Moreover, there have been federal judges in Massachusetts, Florida and Colorado that have ruled for the admissibility of DTI imaging in diagnosing mTBI.

In conclusion, DTI imaging technology is gaining traction and general acceptance in both the medical and legal fields. In light of this, it is important for defense attorneys to stay up to date regarding the recent developments of this new technology.

For more information please contact Judy Moon at jmoon@wglaw.com or 267.765.4131

Disclaimer: The contents of this post are for informational purposes only, are not legal advice and do not create an attorney-client relationship.

back to top