A recent report in The New York Times indicated that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is holding a rare “all-hands meeting” to discuss strategic issues in the medical device division of the agency is a further indication that safety approval of medical devices has been compromised, putting patients’ health and safety at risk.  The meeting shows that the FDA sees an urgent need for reform in the agency especially when it comes to medical devices that have seen massive recalls and no recourse of litigation for those injured by these devices.

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) has been working with a large coalition of consumer and patient safety groups to pass the Medical Device Safety Act (MDSA), legislation that would restore the rights of medical device patients to seek justice in state courts when they have been harmed by unsafe medical devices. 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recently concluded driver fatigue, and the lack of federal safety standards protecting passengers on buses, contributed to the death and severity of the injuries sustained in the 2008 Utah bus rollover which killed nine and injured 43.  In response, the American Association for Justice (AAJ) is calling on transportation regulators to review pending pre-Obama administration regulations and open new rule making proceedings to enhance commercial transportation safety measures for both trucks and buses.

You can read more on the American Association for Justice's website here.
 

I recently received the February 2009 issue of the Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology.  The opening article is a position paper of the National Academy of Neuropsychology which is entitled “Secretive Recording of Neuropsychological Testing and Interviewing: Official Position of the National Academy of Neuropsychology”.  The authors of this position paper are Shane S. Bush, Patricia A. Pipental, Ronald M. Ruff, Grant L. Iverson, Jeffrey T. Barth and Donna K. Broshek.
 
There, NAN has taken the position that neuropsychologists do not and should not encourage, condone or engage in the secret recording of neuropsychological interviews or testing as such practice is both deceptive and inconsistent with ethical principles.  The paper also notes, in addition, that such a recording may affect the behavior of the examiner. 
 
Obviously, the issue of secretive recording of neuropsychological evaluations most frequently, if not always, arises in the context of forensic neuropsychological evaluations for litigation purposes.  Further, in most instances, the secret recording would be requested by the plaintiff’s attorney who was concerned about the impartiality of the defense neuropsychologist who is conducting the evaluation. 
 
While the position paper indicates that the examiner’s behavior may be affected, there is no support in the position paper nor any research cited in support of this statement. 
 
Furthermore, as has been indicated in other published papers, many defense neuropsychologists are paid tens of thousands of dollars to serve as a defense neuropsychologists.  Certainly, the payment of large sums of money to serve as a defense forensic expert would have a greater effect on the examiner’s behavior than that examiner recording the neuropsychological evaluation.
 
Finally, it is noteworthy that at the bottom of the position papers as well as all of the other papers published in this issue contain a section entitled “Conflict of Interest”.  In the position papers, all of the authors have indicated that they have no conflict of interest.  While I do not know any of the authors personally and assume and presume that they have undertaken their study with total integrity, it would seem that since this position paper as well as many papers that are published in the Archives involve forensic issues, that where an author is involved in forensic litigation, that neuropsychologist disclose his or her involvement in such litigation and how much of such litigation is on behalf of plaintiffs and/or defendants.  Certainly, if a neuropsychologist earns a great deal of his or her income from forensic litigation matters that a conflict of interest may arise and the readers of the Archives should be aware of such.

The Brain Injury Association of New Jersey will offer two regional seminars this month focusing on the long-term effects of brain injuries on a patient's mental health. The seminars will address the needs of individuals with brain injuries served by health and human service workers throughout New Jersey.

The seminars were created in an effort to increase awareness of brain injuries among health and human service professionals. Since the first series of regional seminars were held in 2003, over 300 health and human service professionals from a wide variety of agencies throughout the state of New Jersey attend the seminars every year.

You can access additional information on the seminars, as well as dates and times for the seminars, online here. 

The Brain Injury Association of New Jersey will hold it's next round of Brain Injury Basics for Families programs over the next several months throughout the state of New Jersey. Brain Injury Basics for Families is a free educational seminar series designed to educate the public on brain injuries, and raise awareness of the more than 9,000 children and adults who are hospitalized each year due to a traumatic brain injury in the state of New Jersey alone. 

Brain Injury Basics discusses the impact of brain injury on families, provides an overview of brain injuries, provides information on the effects of brain injury on families, including the stages of grief family members experience, and offers information about strategies families can utilize when dealing with a brain injury in their own family, and tips for caregivers.

You can access additional information on the Brain Injury Basics series, as well as a list of upcoming seminars, online here.