Mild TBI and post-concussion causation expert
Expert class library · Personal injury · Either side
A physician, neurologist or neuropsychologist who says whether a crash or fall caused a concussion with persistent symptoms, and how long those symptoms should last. Courts exclude concussion and post-concussion opinions from physicians outside the field who did no neurological testing and simply repeat other doctors' conclusions, and generally admit defense causation and neuropsychological testimony that rests on a disclosed method and the full record.
Ask this expertPreview
A preview of this class of expert, built from the public rulings on this page. Ask how the testimony is built, attacked or defended. 20 questions free with a firm email.
Questions this testimony turns on
- Who diagnosed the concussion, on what examination or testing, and how soon after the event?
- Is the witness a neurologist or neuropsychologist, or a physician from another specialty offering neurological opinions?
- Does the opinion rest on the witness's own testing, or does it repeat the conclusions of treating providers?
- Did the witness review the full prior medical history, including conditions the plaintiff did not disclose to treating providers?
- How does the witness explain symptoms that persist beyond the period in which most concussion symptoms resolve?
Methods
- Neurological examination
- Glasgow Coma Scale and acute record review
- Neuropsychological testing
- Post-concussion literature analysis
- Alternative cause differential
How the testimony is attacked
- Outside the specialty and no testing. Defendants move to exclude concussion opinions from physicians in other fields. In D'Arro v. Morkides the Delaware Superior Court excluded an orthopedic spine surgeon's concussion and post-concussive syndrome opinions because he was not qualified in neurology and did no neurological testing.
- Conduit for other doctors' opinions. Challengers argue the expert merely repeats treating providers' diagnoses. D'Arro held the surgeon was acting as a conduit for the opinions of colleagues who performed the neurological work, which also left the defense unable to cross-examine the real source.
- Biomechanical injury causation analysis. Plaintiffs attack defense physicians who use crash forces to say the event could not have caused lasting symptoms. In McGann v. Lilly the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld admission of a physician's injury causation analysis built on accident reconstruction, published literature and the medical records.
- Incomplete history. Defense experts emphasize preexisting conditions and history the plaintiff withheld from treating providers. McGann noted that the plaintiff's own neurologist had not been told of relevant prior history, which the defense used to undercut his causation opinion.
- Psychologist offering medical causation. Plaintiffs object that a neuropsychologist without a medical degree cannot address the cause of post-concussive symptoms. In Leininger v. Heaney the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana upheld admission of a defense neuropsychologist's testimony after de novo review under Article 702.
What the public record shows
Courts have filed at least 26 opinions since 2015 that discuss this class of testimony and cite Daubert or Rule 702, as of October 3, 2026. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Year | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | D'Arro v. MorkidesC.A. No. N21C-01-142 CLS (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2022) | Del. Super. Ct. | 2022 | Applying D.R.E. 702 and Daubert, the court excluded an orthopedic spine surgeon's opinions that a crash caused concussion and post-concussive syndrome because he was not qualified to give neurological opinions, did no neurological testing, and served as a conduit for other doctors' conclusions. |
| Admitted | McGann v. LillyNo. 05-22-00455-CV (Tex. App. Dallas Aug. 14, 2023) | Tex. App. (Dallas) | 2023 | The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a defense physician's injury causation analysis, based on accident reconstruction, literature and the medical records, that a car wreck did not cause the plaintiff's lingering post-concussion symptoms. |
| Admitted | Leininger v. HeaneyNo. 2023-CA-0574 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. Aug. 15, 2024) | La. Ct. App. (4th Cir.) | 2024 | On de novo review under Louisiana Code of Evidence article 702, the court upheld admission of a defense neuropsychologist's testimony on the plaintiff's cognitive status and post-concussion complaints over objections that he lacked a medical degree and was cumulative, while vacating the verdict on other grounds. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Most of these rulings come from state courts, which apply their own evidence rules: many follow Daubert, some still apply Frye, and a few exempt certain testimony from a reliability hearing altogether. Check which standard governs in your court before relying on a ruling.
In federal court: amended Rule 702
In federal court, since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Updated October 3, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener. The summaries are written by AI working from the full text of each opinion, and every citation and link is checked automatically. Outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert’s testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling. Spotted an error? Tell us.