What Neuroimaging Does, and Doesn't Prove: Clinical Insights for Attorneys

Author: Tobias B. Kulik, MD, FAAN, CPPS, CIME
Category: Clinical Insights

Neuroimaging—CT scans, MRIs, and their specialized variants—plays a central role in neurological litigation. Images are tangible, visual evidence that attorneys and juries can see, making them powerful exhibits. But imaging is frequently misinterpreted, overinterpreted, or misunderstood by non-medical professionals. Understanding what neuroimaging can and cannot demonstrate is essential to building or defending a case that rests on radiological evidence.

The Basics: CT vs. MRI

CT (computed tomography) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) are complementary modalities with different strengths:

CT Imaging

Fast, widely available, and excellent for detecting acute hemorrhage, skull fractures, and large structural abnormalities
First-line study in emergency settings (trauma, suspected stroke, acute altered mental status)
Limited sensitivity for subtle parenchymal injuries, early ischemic changes, and posterior fossa pathology

MRI

Superior soft tissue resolution; better for detecting small infarcts, contusions, white matter abnormalities, and posterior fossa lesions
Specialized sequences (DWI, FLAIR, SWI, GRE) provide additional diagnostic information
Takes longer, requires patient cooperation, and is not always available emergently

Key point for attorneys: The choice of modality and timing of the study affect what can be seen. A normal CT does not exclude pathology that MRI would detect, and vice versa.

What Neuroimaging CAN Demonstrate

When appropriately obtained and interpreted, neuroimaging can provide objective evidence of:

Structural pathology. Hemorrhage, infarction, contusion, mass lesions, hydrocephalus, herniation, and skull or spine fractures.
Location and extent of injury. Imaging can map where in the brain damage has occurred, which correlates with expected clinical deficits.
Chronicity (in some cases). Certain imaging features help distinguish acute from subacute from chronic pathology—though this is often an estimate, not a precise timestamp.
Vascular anatomy. CT angiography (CTA) and MR angiography (MRA) can identify aneurysms, stenoses, occlusions, and vascular malformations.

What Neuroimaging CANNOT Demonstrate

Equally important is understanding the limitations:

Normal imaging does not exclude brain injury. Concussion, by definition, is a functional disturbance that typically produces no findings on standard CT or MRI. A normal scan does not mean the patient was not injured—but it also does not prove that they were.
Imaging findings do not prove causation. An abnormality on imaging establishes that pathology exists, not that a specific event caused it. A patient may have preexisting white matter disease, old infarcts, or incidental findings unrelated to the incident in question.
Imaging cannot precisely date an injury. While imaging features evolve over time (e.g., hemorrhage transitions from hyperdense to hypodense on CT), these changes occur over ranges of hours to days, not with clock-like precision. Statements like "this injury occurred exactly 48 hours ago" are not supportable.
Imaging does not measure function. A scan shows structure, not capability. Two patients with identical-appearing lesions may have vastly different clinical outcomes depending on neuroplasticity, rehabilitation, and individual factors.
Not all abnormalities are clinically significant. Incidental findings—small vessel ischemic changes, asymptomatic meningiomas, arachnoid cysts, developmental variants—are common, particularly in older patients. Their presence does not establish that they are causing the patient's symptoms.

Common Misinterpretations in Litigation

Several patterns of misinterpretation recur in neurological litigation:

1. Conflating presence of abnormality with proof of causation

An MRI shows white matter changes. The plaintiff attributes them to a recent accident. But white matter hyperintensities are extremely common in the general population, increasing with age, hypertension, diabetes, and migraine history. Without comparison imaging from before the incident—which rarely exists—causation cannot be established by imaging alone.

2. Overreliance on advanced imaging techniques

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), functional MRI (fMRI), and volumetric analysis are sometimes offered as "proof" of brain injury in mild TBI cases. While these techniques are valuable research tools, they have not been validated for individual case adjudication. Inter-scanner variability, lack of normative databases, and sensitivity to technical factors limit their forensic applicability. Courts and experts should approach such evidence with appropriate skepticism.

3. Ignoring timing and evolution of findings

Imaging findings evolve over time. A stroke that appears subtle on CT at 6 hours will be much more apparent at 24–48 hours. A subdural hematoma transitions from hyperdense (acute) to isodense (subacute) to hypodense (chronic) over days to weeks. Misunderstanding this evolution can lead to incorrect conclusions about when an injury occurred.

4. Cherry-picking findings

Imaging reports often include multiple observations. An expert who emphasizes one finding while ignoring others—or who relies on subtle findings while dismissing the overall radiologist's impression—may be presenting an incomplete or misleading picture.

The Role of the Radiologist vs. the Clinician

Radiologists interpret images and generate reports, but they often do so without full access to the clinical history. The treating or consulting neurologist integrates imaging findings with the clinical examination, symptom history, and medical context.

In litigation, this distinction matters. A radiology report may describe findings without opining on causation or clinical significance. A neurological expert can contextualize those findings: Are they consistent with the alleged mechanism? Are they better explained by preexisting disease? Do they correlate with the patient's documented deficits?

Questions to Ask When Imaging Is Central to a Case

When neuroimaging is a key element of the evidence, attorneys should consider:

Is the imaging modality appropriate for the claimed injury? CT for acute hemorrhage and fractures; MRI for subtle parenchymal injury and ischemia.
When was the imaging obtained relative to the incident? Timing affects sensitivity and the appearance of findings.
Is there comparison imaging from before the incident? Without a baseline, distinguishing new from preexisting pathology is often impossible.
Are the findings specific to the alleged mechanism? Or could they have other explanations (age-related changes, vascular risk factors, prior injury)?
Do the imaging findings correlate with the clinical presentation? A lesion in the left motor cortex should produce right-sided weakness, not left-sided.
Is the expert qualified to interpret neuroimaging in clinical context? Neurologists routinely review imaging alongside the clinical picture; this integration is essential for accurate opinions.

Key Takeaways for Case Evaluation

Normal imaging does not exclude brain injury; abnormal imaging does not prove causation
Without pre-incident comparison imaging, distinguishing new injury from preexisting disease is often impossible
Advanced imaging techniques (DTI, fMRI) have not been validated for individual forensic application
Imaging findings must be correlated with the clinical presentation and alleged mechanism
Neurological expertise is often needed to contextualize radiology findings for litigation

When Expert Review Is Warranted

Neuroimaging interpretation benefits from independent neurological review when:

The clinical significance of imaging findings is disputed
Causation requires distinguishing new injury from preexisting disease
Timing of injury is contested and imaging evolution must be analyzed
Advanced imaging techniques (DTI, fMRI) are being offered as evidence
Imaging findings need to be correlated with clinical deficits and the overall case narrative

An independent neurological review can clarify what the imaging does and does not support, identify alternative explanations for findings, and provide testimony that places imaging in proper clinical and evidentiary context.

Dr. Tobias B. Kulik is a board-certified neurologist with subspecialty certification in Vascular Neurology and Neurocritical Care. He has extensive experience interpreting neuroimaging in both clinical and medico-legal contexts, with particular expertise in stroke, brain injury, and neurocritical care imaging. He provides independent expert witness services for both plaintiff and defense counsel.

If you're evaluating a case where neuroimaging interpretation is central to the dispute, I'm happy to discuss whether my analysis would be useful. Request a confidential consultation.

References

1. Stable JR, Brey RL. Neuroimaging in the courtroom. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2023;29(3):896–909. doi:10.1212/CON.0000000000001271

2. Bigler ED. Neuroimaging biomarkers in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Neuropsychol Rev. 2013;23(3):169–209. doi:10.1007/s11065-013-9237-2

3. Debette S, Markus HS. The clinical importance of white matter hyperintensities on brain magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;341:c3666. doi:10.1136/bmj.c3666

4. Kidwell CS, Wintermark M. Imaging of intracranial haemorrhage. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7(3):256–267. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70041-3

5. Shenton ME, Hamoda HM, Schneiderman JS, et al. A review of magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging findings in mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Imaging Behav. 2012;6(2):137–192. doi:10.1007/s11682-012-9156-5

6. Provenzale JM. Imaging of traumatic brain injury: a review of the recent medical literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):16–19. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3687

7. Wardlaw JM, Smith EE, Biessels GJ, et al. Neuroimaging standards for research into small vessel disease and its contribution to ageing and neurodegeneration. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12(8):822–838. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70124-8

8. Douglas DB, Iv M, Douglas PK, et al. Diffusion Tensor Imaging of TBI: Potentials and Challenges. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;24(5):241–251. doi:10.1097/RMR.0000000000000062

─────────────────────────────────────────────

CorteXion LLC

"Experts Across Brain Matters"