Neuropsychological Evaluations Demystified with Dr. Janyna Mercado

“Every test you take today is going to tap into how a different part of your brain is working. Some tests will have more emphasis on different lobes of your brain than others. We’re going to be evaluating your memory, your attention, and your concentration ability.” – Dr. Janyna Mercado

Welcome to Winning The TBI Case, hosted by trial lawyer Tom Crosley. Listen as Tom provides practical, powerful guidance for litigating traumatic brain injury cases. This podcast is meant for litigation attorneys who are ready to explore the essentials of TBI cases to confidently represent clients who have suffered traumatic brain injuries.

What’s In This Episode
This episode is essential for TBI attorneys who want to move beyond basic neuropsychology knowledge into advanced tactics. Learn the strategic timing for neuropsychological evaluations, how to interpret validity measures, and why transparency about test limitations strengthens rather than weakens your expert testimony. Dr. Mercado shares insider tips that can transform your approach in the courtroom.

Advanced Testing Strategies and Courtroom Applications

In the second part of this two-part series, Tom Crosley continues his conversation with Dr. Janyna Mercado to reveal strategies for neuropsychological evidence in TBI cases. Dr. Mercado demystifies the evaluation process and explains the critical timing decisions that can make or break your case. This conversation provides expert witness insights to maximize neuropsychological evidence and avoid the common mistakes that undermine TBI cases.

Dr. Mercado’s practical insights reveal why successful neuropsychological evidence requires understanding both the science and the strategy behind telling compelling stories to juries and judges.

Winning the TBI Case — Episode 17: Neuropsychological Evaluation Demystified with Dr. Janyna Mercado

Crosley Law | Runtime: 29:48 | Speakers: Narrator, Tom Crosley, Dr. Janyna Mercado

[0:00] Dr. Janyna Mercado: So I will tell attorneys: these are not lie detector tests. They’re effort measures, they’re validity measures. They let us know a snapshot in that person’s day.

[0:11] Narrator: TBI cases can feel like navigating uncharted territory. Your client’s injury is real, but proving it? That’s where the real challenge begins. If you’ve ever felt like you’re missing crucial pieces of the puzzle, you’re in the right place. Welcome to Winning the TBI Case, where Tom Crosley shares the insights he’s gained from over 60 injury trials, not just the victories, but the lessons learned along the way that make all the difference. This is practical wisdom from someone who’s been in your shoes and found a path forward. Winning the TBI Case, strategy, science, and storytelling. In this conversation, Dr. Mercado breaks down the science behind cognitive testing.

[0:58] Tom Crosley: So my next subject I want to talk to you about is to help us demystify the process of a neuropsychological evaluation. Probably, unlike many of our listeners, I’ve actually done neuropsychological testing. I did it some years ago because I wanted to understand it better, because I figured the better I understood it, the better of an advocate I could be for my clients in court cases. But for those of us that haven’t gone through the process, can you teach us what’s important for us to know about how the evaluation process works?

[1:26] Dr. Janyna Mercado: First part of a neuropsychological evaluation should consist of a comprehensive clinical interview where the client will meet face to face and it’ll be about an hour to an hour and a half long process where we gather substructive information. Now, the assessment itself is the really fun part. And so, this is where we begin by selecting a battery that is very comprehensive. We select tests that will tap into every part of the brain function. And that’s typically what I tell clients: every test you take today is going to tap into how a different portion of your brain is working. Some tests will have more activity in different lobes of your brain than others, but we’re gonna be evaluating your memory, your attention, your concentration abilities. So, to demystify these tests, one of them is typically an IQ test that involves things like verbal comprehension abilities, working memory, processing speed. Then we have memory measures, and these are all standardized tests that are scientifically based. And we purchased them from Pearson from Riverside. There’s a variety of different publishers that you have to be a licensed psychologist to purchase these tests from. And then there is a whole realm of psychological testing that we do in addition to the cognitive testing.

[2:46] Dr. Janyna Mercado: So it’s a full day, it’s anywhere from four to six hours again with breaks. But when you send a client for neuropsychological testing, it is an entire day that they will be in clinic with the neuropsychologist taking a battery of tests.

[3:01] Tom Crosley: And if you’re on the defense side and the plaintiff has already submitted to neuropsychological testing, you know, before your involvement, are you able to do your own neuropsychological testing as a defense expert?

[3:13] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Most of the time I am. And when I do work as a defense expert, I always ask to do my own. I believe there is value in meeting a person face to face, doing my own evaluation to see if we get similar testing. Now, if they had recently been tested by a plaintiff’s attorney, I will ask for the raw data. And I will evaluate that because there’s something called practice effects. You never want to administer test back to back because it will inflate the results because they just recently took it. So I like to wait at least a year between my evaluations. And say, I got a case today and they were tested in 2023, I would definitely ask to retest them. But to answer your question, yes, I always ask to do my own IME when I’m hired by defense.

[4:01] Tom Crosley: Are they typically different tests than were done the first time, or do you sometimes use some of the same tests?

[4:05] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I use my own battery. So if it was a different battery and I see that other tests would be more appropriate, I will use different tests. If I want to mirror the battery to see if there’s any improvement or worsening of symptoms, I will sometimes use the same battery. So it really depends on a case-by-case basis.

[4:25] Tom Crosley: What are you looking for before you ever get into test scores in this clinical interview?

[4:31] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I’m looking for various things. So, number one, I do a full comprehensive from the beginning of life to the event that brought them into the clinic. I am looking for changes. I’m looking for when did symptoms begin. In the field of neuropsychology, onset of symptom presentation is critical for diagnoses. So to understand that from the individual directly. Also, I’d like to see if there’s consistency between what I’m being told and what is in the medical records. What have they been reporting to other providers? And if there’s any inconsistencies, and I have the privilege of having the records before my evaluation, then I get to address those inconsistencies in my interview and ask questions to clarify the matter for me.

[5:18] Tom Crosley: I’m sure there are times when you need to assess whether the patient is putting forth good effort, whether they’re being consistent or truthful or giving you reliable data. How do you do that? And what happens if there’s an allegation of exaggeration or malingering? What do you do in those situations?

[5:42] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Great question. So, every single test battery of these assessments that we administer, anytime I evaluate someone in a forensic setting we always administer at least three to four what we call performance validity measures, and symptom validity measures. One set of tests that is completely unique to the field of neuropsychology. This whole concept of poor effort or malingering comes up in these cases, as we know, are true. And actually, depending on what study you pick up and read, about a third of individuals involved in litigation will overreport symptoms for secondary gain. So it’s something that is very unique and very valuable to the litigation process, in my opinion. Every single battery ICA, you will always see performance and symptom validity measures. What do you do if I suspect that there’s overreporting, intentional over-reporting. There’s something I always do. If I’m hired by a plaintiff’s attorney, I will immediately pick up the phone and schedule a call with the attorney. And tell them we finished the testing.

[6:58] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I can’t tell you much, but I feel that your client is over-reporting symptoms. And this is why. And I just feel that transparency and honesty is best than to sugarcoat. And you know, I’ve had surprisingly, I’ve had some attorneys tell me: you know what, Dr. Mercado, I suspect that I don’t think I’m going to work with this client anymore. And instead of the attorney investing more time and hours and money into trying to prove up a case that, you know, and unfortunately, sometimes these are people with genuine injuries, which is really unfortunate. I think it needs to be addressed. And if they just had a bad day, then let’s reevaluate them in six months or a year.

[7:43] Tom Crosley: If that happens on the defense side, I’m assuming that you write a report that helps the defense prove that you think there’s exaggeration or malingering or that makes sense.

[7:55] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Yeah, defense welcomes those reports, as you can imagine.

[8:00] Tom Crosley: I always tell my clients before they go to their neuropsychological testing to use their best effort. I want the test results to show us what this client is really like on a day-to-day basis. How important do you think it is for our clients to get the message that they need to give best effort, that these tests will catch them if they don’t?

[8:19] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I would tell attorneys that that is a must. If you’re a plaintiff’s attorney and you have a client who’s going to take neuropsychological testing, whether they’re doing the evaluation with the neuropsychologists that the plaintiffs have hired or that the defense has hired. I think both sides should really just engage in a very supportive manner with the testing and let them know about these validity measures. Not show them what they are, do research and coach them on specific measures, but give them clear warning. And I can tell you that at the very end of my interviews, that’s standard for my practice. I will tell the clients in my office: you’re going to take some tests. Some of them are going to be really easy. Some of them are going to be really hard. All that matters is that you try your best because there will be some tests that are measuring whether or not you’re providing good effort. And if you don’t, then my hands are tied and I cannot interpret your tests. It’s almost like using the analogy of you move in an MRI machine or in a CT scan. That image is going to come out blurry. And the same way in testing. If you move during those effort measures and you’re not trying and you’re distracted or purposefully, intentionally not answering in the correct manner when a task is easy.

[9:36] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I’m not going to be able to read your data.

[9:38] Tom Crosley: Yeah, it’s a gift to the defense if the plaintiff tries to exaggerate on their neuropsychological testing. Then it plays right into what I think is the best defense that they’re making this up. For our lawyers who are listening, do try to make sure that your clients put forth best efforts. Don’t try to game the system in any way. I never even asked what tests they’re going to give if the defense is doing the testing. I don’t care. I mean, I certainly don’t want somebody to think that I’m asking to know which tests so that I can prep my client for that test. That’s counterproductive. I just want the test to show how my client really is. I don’t want him to be prepared for it. I mean, that would. Why would I want to do that?

[10:17] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Don’t ask for the lists of tests. You’re rarely going to get them. You’re going to get a caveat, stating what cognitive domains will be assessed. There’s no need, and that’s really something that’s static and really will change depending on the presentation of the client on the day of the testing.

[10:36] Tom Crosley: For the benefit of some of our listeners who may not be familiar with the term raw data, can you tell us what that means?

[10:41] Dr. Janyna Mercado: So raw data is the actual testing protocols that we administer. So it contains all of the standardized test items. And then the responses that is given by the client. That would be true. The raw data includes both cognitive testing and psychological testing.

[11:01] Tom Crosley: I know that in some cases of mine, it’s exchanged only from one psychologist to another psychologist. In other cases, we’ll get court orders that allow the lawyers to get the raw data. What is your typical experience in that regard?

[11:12] Dr. Janyna Mercado: My typical experience has been to send my raw data to other neuropsychologists directly if I get a request from the attorney. I will then forward it to the opposing counsel’s neuropsychologist. And I never have a problem sharing my raw data. I think it’s customary in the field. And if you have an expert who’s not asking for the raw data from the other side, as an attorney, I think you should encourage your neuropsychologist to always ask for the raw data from the other side or any prior testing. So, as an attorney, that would be something I would always be sure that you have your expert ask for.

[11:48] Tom Crosley: When should a plaintiff lawyer ideally have a neuropsychological test done on their brain-injured client?

[11:55] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Ideally, I would say six months for a cognitive screener and one year of full battery.

[12:01] Tom Crosley: And what is a cognitive screener in that context?

[12:03] Dr. Janyna Mercado: A cognitive screener would be a brief assessment to evaluate how that person is functioning, who has persistent cognitive consequences from their traumatic brain injury. That will give us an idea to document the level of impairment that was present. And then at a year, we can determine and do a more comprehensive battery to see if that impairment is still present or if we have any improvement in any cognitive domain.

[12:29] Tom Crosley: And so when do repeat evaluations make sense? Because sometimes these cases can go on for three years.

[12:34] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I would say probably within three months if the case is going to trial. It would be nice to have an updated snapshot, so to speak, of the person’s brain and how it’s functioning. And more than anything, it’ll solidify any permanent injuries that are still present. Way and in trial, you can say with confidence: look, I tested this person three years ago, and this is where they were. I tested them three months ago and this is where they’re still at. And it just kind of solidifies permanency to the court. And to the jury, that the cognitive impairment that still is present.

[13:14] Tom Crosley: It is always awkward if we have an expert, a medical doctor, especially, in any subject, not just neuropsychology, that hasn’t seen the plaintiff for more than a year by the time the trial comes around. Because when you start asking the doctor, hey, how’s Susie doing now? What does the future hold for Susie? You don’t want to get the answer of, I don’t know, I haven’t seen her in two years.

[13:37] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Absolutely.

[13:37] Tom Crosley: What if the case is going on for three years? Do you do the testing every year, or is it enough to do it at the one-year mark and then again months or so before the trial?

[13:47] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Typically, my recommendations are every 12 to 18 months. I would say if you know you do it at the year mark and you’re going to go to trial a year and a half to two years later, just wait the 18 months, 18 plus months. You don’t want too many psych evals back to back. It’s not clinically warranted unless you’re going to trial and you want to prove the permanency of an injury. That would be highly recommended at that.

[14:12] Tom Crosley: From a neuropsychological standpoint, what strengthens or weakens the neuropsych part of the case?

[14:20] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Number one is, I would say, consistent records and treatment records. Ensuring that your client is receiving the treatment needed for the symptoms that are being presented. That may include cognitive rehab, that may include seeing a neurologist for post-concussive symptoms that may be present. That might include being in therapy for the psychological impacts. So I think consistency with treatment, having a good paper trail, documentation of the symptoms is key for plaintiff.

[14:54] Tom Crosley: Let me flip it and ask the same question on the defense side. So, what does a well-supported defense case look like to you as a neuropsychologist?

[15:02] Dr. Janyna Mercado: When I get records that are missing key information or detail, when I see key inconsistencies in the acute medical records where the individual may have had a Glasgow Coma Scale of 15. Neurologically intact at the scene. But then three months later, there’s all these records that begin to appear, brain injury symptoms. And as we know, that’s not the normal trajectory of brain injury. So be wary, whether you’re a plaintiff attorney or defense attorney, if your client claims TBI, but then doesn’t become symptomatic until six months later after they hire you. That’s kind of a red flag. And defense attorneys definitely jump on that.

[15:46] Tom Crosley: Are there any other red flags that you haven’t told us about that would concern you? Regardless of which side you’re on in the case.

[15:53] Dr. Janyna Mercado: You know, my biggest pet peeve is just people trying their best. You know, I, as a neuropsychologist, know what brain injury looks like. And when individuals walk into my office or into an attorney’s office overreporting symptoms that are above and beyond what would be expected for their level of injury, I think that’s a red flag for all of us in the industry.

[16:13] Tom Crosley: When you’re testifying in a legal case at trial in front of a jury, what do you view as your role?

[16:21] Dr. Janyna Mercado: The jury, my role for the jury would be to educate the jury on number one, the type of brain injury that the individual had. And number two, the cognitive and psychological injuries the person may have sustained and how that’s impacted their functioning and their day-to-day activities.

[16:40] Tom Crosley: Do you typically delve into the actual tests that were given that showed deficits and/or how do you explain it?

[16:47] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I feel my experience has been that if I delve into the test scores, I truly lose the jury, and I lose people’s attention. I feel that talking about more big picture concepts is most effective. And so when I’m working with attorneys, I always ask when they present me if they can kind of focus on those strengths and weaknesses in the cognitive profile and the psychological profiles of the individuals. I have seen juries fall asleep and be very bored when an attorney will start asking me questions about, well, the FBS scale on the MMPI was elevated at a 97, and the jury is like, Greek. I like to engage the jury as my audience and speak to them at a level that they understand our field.

[17:38] Tom Crosley: When you work with really strong lawyers, what do you see them doing differently? When it comes to the trial of the case and your role in the case?

[17:46] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Whether it’s plaintiff or defense, I feel that number one, you can tell, I can tell, and I feel that the courtroom can tell. Your knowledge base as an attorney of the subject that you’re trying to question your expert about. Yes, attorneys have their own level of expertise. And I mean, y’all are attorneys, and but I feel that when you’re presenting an expert in a field such as neuropsychology, you should have knowledge, basic knowledge background, what a traumatic brain injury looks like, and what are some of the expected consequences? Be familiar with the literature in that field. I think, as an attorney, that could be your biggest strength: gaining further education in the realm that you’re questioning your expert about, know their field enough that they know you understand what you’re asking about when you’re asking those questions.

[18:36] Tom Crosley: You’re singing my tune now because I think the best cross-examination strategy for an expert, especially a brain injury expert, say it’s a defense expert is for me to find peer-reviewed, well-accepted literature, proves the point I’m trying to make and disputes the point the defense is trying to make. And in most states, not all, but most, we’re allowed to use that literature if it is considered reliable authority, to cross-examine an expert. And so if I can’t get that witness to agree that I’m right and they’re wrong, I can at least force feed them the articles that show I’m right and they’re wrong and make them read them to the jury. Have you seen that done either with you or against you in cases sometimes?

[19:21] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Both. And I think it’s highly effective because you are basically forcing your expert to, one, be genuine and admit to the literature that exists in the fields of traumatic brain injury. I think that’s an excellent strategy that’s used because it’s something that you cannot, it’s what’s been peer-reviewed and scientifically proven.

[19:43] Tom Crosley: So what are some of the most effective cross-examination strategies you’ve seen of neuropsychologists?

[19:50] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I think pulling up prior medical records, prior history. They love to show surveillance cam videos.

[19:56] Tom Crosley: When you’re on the defense side, what have been the most effective cross-examine techniques you’ve seen coming from the plaintiff attorney?

[20:02] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I think, like you said, I think peer-reviewed articles are a really big thing and knowledgeable attorneys don’t happen often enough, I feel like. I feel that when I work as a defense, I think that more plaintiff attorneys need to become savvier and better educated in the realm of traumatic brain injury and take time to research and read the literature in the field.

[20:21] Tom Crosley: There are some that would criticize the field of neuropsychology as too much of a soft science and too subjective. Where do you stand on that issue?

[20:31] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I can definitely understand that when it comes to psychology in isolation. The field of neuropsychology is truly grounded in scientific research for decades. It’s a very well-respected field. Neuropsychology is highly integrated into multidisciplinary teams in clinical settings, hospitals, and rehab facilities. And I would say that the subjective nature of neuropsychology is much less than in psychology by itself, because in neuropsychology we have objective data, which is the result of these standardized measures that are actually providing invaluable information in these cases.

[21:18] Tom Crosley: Plenty of cases that I’ve tried where the plaintiff neuropsychologist and the defense neuropsychologist are looking at the same data. You know, maybe it was the first testing done by the plaintiff. And then maybe the defense did their own testing. Yet one expert says black and the other says white from the same information. So what do we do with that?

[21:38] Dr. Janyna Mercado: That’s where we agree to disagree. And I think we not only see that in litigation, but we see that in a clinical setting as well, which is why we have multidisciplinary teams, all talking about the same case and they can all have different perspectives on it. Much like in the litigation setting, I feel that we really have to work hard remaining unbiased, too. That’s our ethical principle. And if you have a 10-year psychologist and the one hired by the defense or the one hired by the defendant is the outlier. That’s the problem.

[22:10] Tom Crosley: So it seems that I’m typically getting those defense neuropsychologists who do 95 or more percent of their work for the defense. And they’ll usually take outlier type positions such as a person who has a concussion will 100% of the time be well within three months. And if they’re still having symptoms, it’s not related to the concussion, it must be psychological. Something like that. Have you actually seen that or heard of people saying things like that in court cases?

[22:38] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Yes, I do know colleagues in the field who work only defense cases or 99.9 defense cases, and every single mild traumatic brain injury case that I have been opposing them, they consistently say they either didn’t have a concussion, and if they did, they should be fine by now because it’s been more than three months. Everybody. It’s not statistically probable that every single out of the hundred cases they’ve had in their career, a hundred have been fine.

[23:08] Tom Crosley: When a patient fails a performance or symptom validity measure. I know that one explanation is they’re exaggerating or they’re faking. Are there other explanations? That other than intentional deception, can logically be called upon to explain why somebody might fail one of these validity measures.

[23:32] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Thank you for asking that because I feel that attorneys need to know that when these measures are failed. Especially if it’s like one out of three and not consistently across the board that all of these measures are failed. Reasons that these are failed are: one, a person could be having chronic pain that day, they could have a really bad headache. It’s up to the clinician to provide them breaks. They could have not slept well the night before. They may have come in from out of town. They could have had something happen in their immediate family. I mean, there are so many different reasons why an individual will put forth poor effort on testing. And there’s tons of literature about this, that this topic that we’re talking about. That is the first line of what we look at as neuropsychologists and something that could really harm a case. And I feel that defense only experts will always see a failed score and will always say they’re malingering. They’re liars. That’s not true. I think that’s one method in neuropsychology that I would love to teach attorneys and to let them know: look, if you have one failed effort measure, that is not an end-all to your case. There could be a variety of reasons for lower scores. So don’t hang your hat only on one or two isolated tests.

[24:48] Dr. Janyna Mercado: They’re not going to invalidate your entire testing.

[24:52] Tom Crosley: Have you ever heard of that phenomenon, the game show phenomenon, where you know the answer to the question, but now you’re kind of put under the spotlight and they ask you the question, your mind kind of blanks?

[25:00] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Absolutely. And I can tell you, I’ve had clients in here. And that’s why I like to start my days with the interview. And I say, How are you feeling today? Is today kind of a normal day for you? Like, we’ve been so nervous about this evaluation. I’ve been up since three this morning and couldn’t go back to sleep. I didn’t know what today was going to be like. It could be very intimidating to walk into a neuropsychologist’s office and know that you’re gonna be there an entire day, answering questions. We have to take litigation stress into account when interpreting these data profiles that we obtain. And we don’t know that unless we sit with the person and interview them and know if they’re experiencing this concept of litigation stress that can definitely impact testing results.

[25:46] Tom Crosley: From a clinician’s standpoint, Dr. Mercado, what are the limits of what neuropsychological testing can actually tell us?

[25:55] Dr. Janyna Mercado: So I will tell attorneys: these are not lie detector tests, they’re effort measures, they’re validity measures. They let us know a snapshot in that person’s day if that person is engaged with us, if they’re trying or if they’re not.

[26:10] Tom Crosley: And so how would you communicate uncertainty or limitations in your findings, especially in cases where the stakes are high?

[26:18] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I have found it to be best just to be very direct and open and honest. If you’re not honest and transparent, you’re only harming the client. And you’re hurting the case. I wouldn’t want to do that for anybody. There’s people I feel that I’ve tested that have genuine injuries and fail these effort measures. But I still think they are genuinely injured. So I think talking it through and discussing it with the attorneys and re-evaluating when appropriate can be an option.

[26:47] Tom Crosley: Recently, did a case where there was a shoulder injury and a neck injury and a TBI, right? Because it’s polytrauma. You had done some testing on it and you said, this isn’t a TBI. These symptoms probably coming from something else, not TBI related. I was thankful to have that information because I had a very strong shoulder and neck injury case anyway. I would hate to lose my credibility in court by trying to prove something that I’ve got the losing side of.

[27:14] Dr. Janyna Mercado: Thank you so much for bringing that up because not every single case is a TBI case. And you know what? That’s okay. I’d rather you all know than not know and have good information that you could use to strengthen your case.

[27:27] Tom Crosley: What do you see good lawyers doing? What do you wish lawyers would do when it comes to prepping a neuropsych both for deposition and later for trial testimony.

[27:39] Dr. Janyna Mercado: So what I see good lawyers do in prepping for deposition and trial testimony is taking at least an hour a week before the depo, not the morning of the deposition or the day of trial. Give us an opportunity to meet with us 30 minutes to an hour, a week before deposition, a week before trial, to give us time to prepare for the case and to ensure that we have all proper documents. Also, to determine if we need to have any demonstratives that may be helpful to the case.

[28:09] Tom Crosley: What is one thing you wish trial lawyers would do differently when working with neuropsych experts, whether it’s plaintiff or defense?

[28:17] Dr. Janyna Mercado: I wish that trial lawyers would work with us in determining what questions would be the most appropriate to ask us. In a manner that would allow us to convey our opinions in a very simple format to the jury, because ultimately they’re the ones that need understanding the judge. And so I want to be able to convey my findings. And in order to do that, I need to be asked the appropriate questions so that I’m answering a question that is being posed.

[28:47] Tom Crosley: Thank you for generously agreeing to share your time and expertise with us today. If any of our listeners want to reach you, what is the best way for them to do that?

[28:56] Dr. Janyna Mercado: At my office or via email at Janyna Mercado at Texas Neuropsych Institute dot com.

[29:05] Tom Crosley: Thank you very much. So, folks, this wraps up our two-part series with Dr. Janyna Mercado, PhD, a clinical neuropsychologist. I know I learned a lot, and I hope you did too. This has been Winning the TBI Case. I’m your host, Tom Crosley.

[29:19] Narrator: If today’s episode helped you see your current case in a new light, share it with a colleague who’s facing the same challenges in a case. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, and join our community of trial lawyers who refuse to settle for average results. This has been Winning the TBI Case. Strategy, Science, and Storytelling with Tom Crosley.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

• Connect directly with Dr. Janyna Mercado at https://texasneuropsychinstitute.com
• Are you ready to take your TBI practice to the next level? Subscribe to Winning The TBI Case newsletter at www.crosleylaw.com/podcast for exclusive case studies, resources, and trial strategies you won’t hear anywhere else.
• Join our community of trial lawyers who refuse to settle for average results. Subscribe to Winning The TBI Case on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. And remember, don’t just listen to the strategies, implement them!