Halifax Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

As a personal injury lawyer I have seen many examples of the dangers of brain injuries in sports. In particular I have written about the potential lasting effects that brain injuries can have on child athletes. See for example:

Sudden Impact: Liability for Sports Related Concussions

Brain Injuries: Minor Hockey Players 10x More Likely to Suffer Brain Injuries

Brain Injury Myth #6 - Children Recover Quickly From Brain Injuries

Everybody knows that concussions are dangerous right? Everybody knows that kids who play hockey can suffer concussions right? Hockey Canada has even created a Concussion Awareness App for parents.

Hockey Canada provides insurance for all it's players to cover injuries they may suffer while playing.

While Hockey Canada is aware of the fact that your child may suffer a brain injury while playing hockey, the organization actually doesn't insure against concussions or brain injuries.

This is surprising considering the recent attention concussions and their consequences have been garnering from the media. According to an article in The Province, a Toronto study of children injured between 1990 and 2009 found that hockey accounted for approximately 45% of the brain injuries.

But if your child suffers a crippling brain injury while playing hockey, they will not be covered under their Hockey Canada insurance policy.

What is covered?

The Hockey Canada information guide to their insurance coverage “Safety Requires Teamwork” is available here:

The guide lists the following as injuries that are covered under the policy:

For Loss Of:

Life …………………………….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 25,000
Entire sight of both eyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50,000
One hand and sight of one eye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 45,000
Speech and hearing in both ears .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45,000
Sight of one eye. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 35,000
Speech or hearing in both ears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 30,000

For Loss Of, Or Loss Of Use Of:

Both hands or both feet or both legs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45,000
One hand and one foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45,000
One armor one leg …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 30,000
One hand or one foot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 30,000

Critical Incidence Stress Counselling:

Off-ice maximum per incident
Per insured: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,000
For all insureds: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,000
On-ice maximum per incident: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 25,000

For Paralysis of:

All four limbs (Quadriplegia).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,000,000
Both Lower Limbs (Paraplegia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,000,000
One arm and leg on the same side of the body (Hemiplegia) . . . . . . $ 1,000,000

So why aren't brain injuries being covered? According to the Hockey Canada handbook, “...many times the desired coverage is simply unaffordable.”

I have many friends whose children play hockey. i would be willing to bet that most have no idea that their children are not insured for one of the most common injuries that children suffer while playing hockey.

I understand that the cost of insuring against concussion or other types of brain injuries may be expensive. But how much is too much to pay to cover our children’s brains?

If your child is playing a sport where there is almost a 50% chance they are going to suffer a brain injury, shouldn't parents be told about the lack of coverage and, at the very least, be given the opportunity to purchase optional coverage?

As a personal injury lawyer in Nova Scotia I commonly deal with clients who have suffered head injuries and concussions.

One thing that I have noticed is the symptoms and severity of head injuries, and how long it takes the patient to recover can vary greatly.

One of the challenges brain injury lawyers face is proving what the long term consequences will be for someone who has suffered a traumatic brain injury. I discuss this in more detail in my public legal education guide: Brain Matter: The Survivor's Guide to Brain Injury Claims.

Recovery time difficult to predict

Most people who suffer a concussion will recover within hours or days. But as we have all seen from the recent challenges faced by Sidney Crosby, concussion symptoms can last for months. A small percentage of patients who suffer concussions will develop post-concussion syndrome, where the symptoms last a year or more.

What that means in brain injury compensation claims, is that the injured plaintiff shouldn't settle their claim until all the symptoms of their concussion have resolved.

One of the most common questions people ask me when they first come to see me is: "How long will it take to settle my claim?"

The honest answer to that question is: "I don't know." To understand why read Personal Injury Claims in Nova Scotia: The “Golden Rule”

To date, there has never been an accurate tool or system for predicting the required recovery time for concussions.

Recovery time related to symptom severity

But new research designed to help treat brain injury victims may also end up helping plaintiffs who have filed a compensation claim as a result of having suffered a concussion.

This article highlights research in The Journal of Pediatrics from the Boston Children’s Hospital and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center which attempts to correlate symptoms of concussion with recovery times.

Previous studies tried to correlate recovery time to the ages of patients or whether recovery time was related to having previously experienced a concussion.

Relating symptoms to recovery time

The Boston - Pittsburg study analyzed 182 patients who suffered from concussions. The patients ranked the severity of their symptoms on a scale from 0-6 with 0 meaning ‘not experiencing this symptom’ and 6 meaning the symptom was ‘severe’.

The researchers then compared the severity of the symptoms with the recovery times and found a correlation.

Long term problem

One of the researchers on the study, Dr. Meehan, says:

“Parents, physicians, and caregivers of athletes who suffer from a high-degree of symptoms after a sports-related concussion should start preparing for the possibility of a prolonged recovery.”

Patients who are suffering from a concussion should be careful about rushing back into strenuous activity. I have posted about the dangers of repeat concussions here: Concussions and Traumatic Brain Injuries in Sport

This useful website provides step-by-step guidelines for parents who are assisting their children in recovering from a concussion.

Hopefully, with a little more research, physicians will eventually be able to accurately predict the length of recovery times for concussions based on the severity of the symptoms experienced.

Research may help doctors...and lawyers

This will serve to assist physicians in properly coordinating the appropriate treatments for their patients. But it will also help brain injury lawyers, and their clients, because it will allow lawyer to estimate, in advance, how long a client will be disabled as a result of their concussion, which in turn should allow lawyers to more accurately predict, and prove, the quantum of damages the brain injured plaintiff may be entitled to receive.

If you suffered a concussion what are your legal options?

Concussions are a serious injury that can have long- term, potentially devastating, effects. With careful investigation an experienced brain injury lawyer can increase the odds of scoring a win for injured athletes.

Continue reading "Predicting recovery time from concussions: New research may help brain injury claims" »

I received a very kind note today from one of the teachers at Bicentennial JHS about the presentation we gave to the students a few weeks ago.

Talking with the students at BJHS

"Thank you again for your dynamic presentation to our students two weeks ago. You handled them really well and they took in the importance of what you had to say. Your presentation had an impact on me, too. I drive every day and am consciously trying to focus more on the road and let distractions wait!"

In the last 4 months I have been able to give this presentation to more than 1600 students at 14 schools throughout HRM. My goal for next year is to give this presentation to every high school and junior high school in HRM. I'm recruiting volunteers to give this presentation to schools in other parts of Nova Scotia and I have teamed up with Trial Lawyer Associations across the country to get the message out across the rest of Canada.

I have to say my volunteer work with EndDD.org has been a great experience. I have met lots of bright young students, had some very interesting discussions and I think I have learned as much as the kids have learned.

What more information? Read my article The Deadly Consequences of Distracted Driving (and what you can do to help)

I was going to write an article summarizing Nova Scotia’s proposed new Cyber-Safety Act. Legislation that the government has introduced to battle cyberbullying. However, my colleague David Fraser has done an excellent job noting the highlights of the Act on his Canadian Privacy Law Blog so I would commend his article to anyone interested in this issue. You can read it here.

Almost a year ago I wrote an article for the Atlantic Canada legal Examiner: More Needs To be Done in Nova Scotia to Protect Children Against Cyberbullying. The province has now tabled the new legislation and it does do more to help protect our children so I thought I would share my views of the proposed legislation.

Parental responsibility

One of the things I think is important about the proposed legislation, and something I support, is that the Cyber-Safety Act places some responsibility on the parents of children who are engaged in cyberbullying to monitor their children’s online activities and take steps to prevent cyberbullying.

Specifically, the legislation says that where a parent knows their child is engaged in online activity that may cause “...fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress, or other damage or harm” and fails to take the steps to prevent the activity, the parent is deemed to be engaged in cyberbullying.

Courts have power to address Cyber-Bullying

In the media debate about cyber-bullying, some commentators have suggested that current legislation isn't well suited to dealing with the issues created by social media while others have asserted that simply enforcing existing criminal laws should be sufficient.

The proposed legislation provides the Courts with authority to issue protection orders prohibiting the cyberbully from engaging in certain activities and communicating with the victim, as well as a broad discretionary provision that allows a judge to include:

“...any other provision that the justice considers necessary or advisable for the protection of the subject”.

This is a significant step forward.

However, if the victim of cyberbullying is a minor the victim’s parents must apply for the protection order. This, of course, raises a question of what happens if the parent of the victim does not want to get involved or is intimidated by the cyberbully or the cyberbully’s parents?

We will have to wait and see how this plays out in the future.

Victims have recourse through the courts

Another feature in the proposed legislation that is interesting is the creation of a new tort (civil claim) of cyberbullying.

Victims of cyberbullying now have the right to sue a cyberbully for damages for among other things, pain and suffering, aggravated damages and punitive damages caused by the cyberbully’s conduct.

If the cyberbully is a minor, this section also makes the minor’s parents jointly responsible for the bully’s actions.

In the past, it has typically been pointless to file a lawsuit against a teenage bully since most children do not have assets to respond to a lawsuit. The cost and expenses would far exceed the potential for any actual financial recovery.

However, by making the parents jointly responsible for the teenage bully’s actions the victim now has access to the parents’ assets and, potentially, the parents’ insurance coverage.

It will be interesting to see how fast insurance companies respond by specifically excluding coverage for bullying claims, like they did when homeowners insurance policies were forced to pay out claims for child sexual abuse.

Schools have more authority

Finally, the proposed legislation includes changes to the Education Act which will empower school Principals to take action over activities that take place outside of school that are “disruptive” to the learning climate of the school.

In other words, if a child is being bullied outside the school or during after-school hours, and it impacts on the victim’s performance in the school, Principals now potentially have a means of taking steps to address the conduct.

This is an important step forward because for the most part the schools have been unable (or unwilling?) to address conduct that takes place during after-school hours.

One must keep in mind that the section empowering the Principals to take action is permissive (“may take appropriate action”). So how effective this section of the proposed legislation will be depends entirely on the willingness of the Principal of each particular school to become engaged and to address the bullying conduct and its consequences.

Nova Scotia leading the way in protecting victims of bullying

Last year I was critical of Nova Scotia's lack luster response to the Cyber-bullying Taskforce. i can say now that I am impressed with the new legislation. there is more that i would have like to see in the legislation, but I think it is fair to say that with this proposed legislation, Nova Scotia has become a pioneer in this area of the law.

It is tragic that it has taken the lives of more than one Nova Scotian teenager to illustrate the need for the legislation.

I am pleased to say that I have been included in the 2013 Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory in the field of Personal injury Law.

What's important about the Lexpert directory is that you can't pay to be included. Selection is based upon nominations and voting by a lawyers peer group.

It's an honour to be included again. I want to say thanks to my clients who have allowed me to work on such challenging and interesting cases and thanks to my colleagues for their recognition and support.

I have been a personal injury lawyer in Nova Scotia for 23 years. So I have been involved in countless cases where the parties have been able to settle their claims and avoid the risk and expense of trial.

But offers to settle can also have significant legal impact even if a case doesn't settle before trial. That's why this article by Matt Maurer was of interest, since it provides a perfect illustration of the strategic use of offers to settle.

Formal Offer to Settle

During any litigation there are usually informal "without prejudice" discussions designed to try to resolve the case that takes place during the litigation process.

However most provinces court rules have specific rules that govern formal offers to settle.

What is an offer to settle? A simple example would be if two parties are involved in a lawsuit. Party A was a pedestrian who was hit by Party B’s car.

A sues B for $100 thousand to cover pain and suffering, loss of income and cost of medical treatment.

B defends the lawsuit, saying that A stepped on to the street before the light changed.

At any time before the trial begins either party can make a formal offer to settle. B might offer to pay A $50 thousand to conclude the proceedings. The offer may also contain other conditions, for example A may be required to keep the amount paid confidential.

Offers to settle are an alternative to the “winner take all” court route. Through settlement the parties can negotiate the outcome and achieve certainty without leaving the final result in the hands of a judge or jury.

What happens if settlement not accepted?

An offer to settle can cause favourable results even if it is not accepted. If a party obtains a “favourable judgment” meaning that, following the rejection of a settlement offer, the Court gives a result that finds the rejecting party in no better position than they would have been if they accepted the offer, the Court will award certain costs to the offering party.

To apply this to the example above: If Party A rejects Party B’s offer of $50 thousand and the matter goes to trial and the judge orders B to pay A $50 thousand (or less), then B will have some of his legal fees paid for by A.

According to the Civil Procedure Rules in Nova Scotia the following guidelines respecting costs apply:

A judge may award costs to a party who starts or who successfully defends a proceeding and obtains a favourable judgment, in an amount based on the tariffs increased by one of the following percentages:

(a) one hundred percent, if the offer is made less than twenty-five days after pleadings close;
(b) seventy-five percent, if the offer is made more than twenty-five days after pleadings close and before setting down;
(c) fifty percent, if the offer is made after setting down and before the finish date;
(d) twenty-five percent, if the offer is made after the finish date.

Essentially the rules try to allow the offering party to recover their legal fees they were forced to spend as a result of the other side not accepting a reasonable offer. They also serve to encourage parties to make reasonable offers instead of low-balling.

I have written about the importance of making a reasonable settlement offer: How Can You Win Your Trial But Still Lose? Cost Awards and Formal Offers to Settle

Back to Mr. Maurer's article, in the case he reviewed, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident. The plaintiff was successful at trial winning on both the issue of liability (who was at fault for the accident) and damages (being awarded compensation).

The defendant lost both the main action and the counterclaim and was ordered to pay $12,875 to the plaintiff.

However, back in 2011 the defendant offered to settle the lawsuit by paying $13,500 plus legal costs to the date of the offer. This offer was left open until the start of trial and was not accepted by the plaintiffs.

The result is that even though the plaintiffs were completely successful on liability in both their claim and in defending the counterclaim, they had to write a cheque for over $12,000 to the defendant.

Won the battle but lost the war

This case is a perfect example of how a plaintiff can win the battle (trial) but lose the war (adverse cost award). It is also teaches plaintiffs to carefully consider every offer to settle received in advance of trial.

Last month the Nova Scotia Supreme Court decided to strike a jury notice and prevent a jury trial.

The case (Anderson v. Cyr) involved a motor vehicle accident in Halifax. The defendants admitted that they were at fault for the accident but they denied the injuries of the plaintiff were caused by their negligence. The defendants wanted a jury trial while the plaintiff sought a judge alone trial.

In considering the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice, Justice Wright considered the complexities and technicalities involved in the case and concluded that it would be better heard by a judge sitting alone.

Wright J. reasoned that a judge sitting alone would be able to take the time to properly analyse the complicated medical records that would be at issue in the case. The motion to strike the jury notice was granted.

Decision

The Court recognized that:

“...there is a longstanding, traditional and substantive right of a party to a civil action in this province to a jury trial.”

However, Justice Wright's principle reason for striking the jury notice was that the substantive evidence in the case was highly technical and scientific, so that it would not likely be comprehensible to a reasonably informed juror.

The plaintiff had filed more than 50 reports from 26 different experts or health providers. One of the plaintiff’s witnesses, neurologist Dr. D. King, referred to the case as being: “one of the most complex and difficult ones he has ever dealt with in his long experience.”

Out of the ordinary

This was an interesting case because the "common wisdom" is that plaintiffs prefer jury trials whereas defendants do not.

In this case the defendant wanted a jury and plaintiff did not. Usually, in medical malpractice cases, the defendant doctors try to strike out (prevent) jury trials arguing that the medical evidence is too complicated for the average juror to understand. In fact on my Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog, I posted about a Nova Scotia case where Justice MacAdam denied the plaintiff's request for a jury trial.

In that case, Anderson v. QEII Health Sciences Centre, the plaintiff suffered a brain injury and wished to proceed against the hospital and two physicians in front of a jury. The defendants moved to strike the jury notice. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld Justice MacAdam’s decision to strike the jury notice due to the complexities of the case.

Be careful what you ask for

I have mixed feelings about the Cyr decision. The danger with a decision like this is that it makes it harder for plaintiffs in complex cases (such as medical malpractice claims) to get jury trials.

The Courts have consistently recognized the right of parties to a jury trial. I think it is problematic for plaintiff's to be in the position of arguing that jurors are not sophisticated enough to understand complex medical evidence.

What do you think?

They say that you are only as old as you think you are. But the older I get the more I realize my body hasn't heard that saying.

Don't get me wrong, I still have a while to go before I am officially considered to be a "senior citizen". But I do understand that as we get older we begin to experience health concerns including loss of hearing and eyesight, our reflexes begin to deteriorate, and we tend to require a wide array of medications which can have any number of effects on our mental capacity.

This combination of issues can be particularly concerning when a senior gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. But how do we get older drivers to give up their prized independence and hand over the keys?

I posed this same question a few years ago Elderly Drivers: How old is too old?

The numbers speak for themselves

In the USA, seniors make up 9 percent of the general population yet they account for 13 percent of traffic fatalities.

In Canada there are over 3.25 million people over the age of 65 with a driver’s licence. Statistics Canada states that people 70 or older have a higher accident rate than any other age group except for young male drivers. Also, as a result of their fragile state, seniors are more likely to be killed when involved in a car accident.

Delicate issue

A recent CBC article addressed the problem of getting seniors to give up their driving privileges. In Canada, doctors and other medical professionals may recommend that a patient’s license be revoked.

Dr. Jo-Anne Clarke agrees that it is a difficult conversation to have with a patient. She recommends focussing the conversation around abilities instead of age. She says the discussion should not be about how old the patient is, but about the limitations they might have developed.

Provinces disagree

The laws across Canada are not uniform. The provinces each have their own way for dealing with senior drivers, some more stringent than others. At the age of 80, in B.C. and Ontario, drivers are required to meet certain obligations if they wish to retain their licenses.

Senior drivers in B.C. submit to a “Driver Medical Examination Report” every two years.

Drivers in Ontario:

(i) take an eye-test;
(ii) they engage in a 90-minute education session about traffic laws, effects of aging on driving, and they receive tips and advice for older drivers; and,
(iii) they take a multiple-choice test.

This is not the case in Nova Scotia. Instead, since 2001, seniors in Nova Scotia are incentivised to sign up for a non-mandatory safe driving course. The government of Nova Scotia subsidizes the course up to $40, with the drivers paying for the remainder.

Potential liability for Doctors

The Canadian Medical Protection Association notes that the issue is one that raises potential legal concerns for doctors treating senior drivers:

"Physicians have been involved in several actions brought on behalf of an injured party in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have been caused in part by the medical disability of another person who should not have been allowed to continue driving. Physicians have been found liable for failing to report, notably in those provinces and territories with mandatory requirements."

What do you think?

Is Nova Scotia doing enough? Should we wait for doctors to make recommendations to transport Canada before senior’s licenses are taken away? Or should there be a mandatory assessment once drivers reach a certain age?

Let me know by leaving a comment.

Want More Information about car accident claims?

If you have been in a car crash in Nova Scotia and are looking for information about your legal rights and responsibilities you can learn more by reading my book : Crash Course: The Consumer's Guide to Car Accident Claims in Nova Scotia.

The book is basically a "crash course" in everything you need to know about auto insurance and car accident claims in Nova Scotia. You can find the Guide on Amazon.com. All proceeds from book sales go to charity.

Free Copy to Blog Readers

But supporters who read this blog can contact me through this blog or call us toll free in Atlantic Canada 1-877-423-2050 and we will send you a copy at no charge.

School Board not liable

A British Columbia school district recently benefitted from a favourable ruling in a case against a former student. In October 2006 the student, Tylor Jackson, was the victim of a terrible assault from another student, Makwalla Hall. The two boys were grade nine students at the time. Makwalla punched Tylor in the head, causing him to fall backwards and hit his head on a window. Tylor suffered from a traumatic brain injury and is permanently mentally and physically disadvantaged.

Should schools be responsible for schoolyard assaults?

In the case of Tylor, the question was whether the BC school board did something (or failed to do something) that should require the Board to bear responsibility for Makwalla's actions?

Negligence of the school board?

Tylor, through the help of his litigation guardian, brought a suit against the school board alleging negligence. He hoped to establish that the school board should be held liable for the assault.

The premise for Tylor’s argument was the school board’s response to an incident between Makwalla and another student which occurred seven (7) months prior.

Makwalla had reportedly punched another student for spilling juice on him. As a result of that incident, Makwalla was given a one-half day ‘in-school’ suspension and a letter to his parent. Tylor argued that this light sentence did not have the desired rehabilitative and deterrent effects. It was argued that if a more appropriate sentence was issued, then Makwalla would likely not have assaulted Tylor seven months later.

In its analysis the Court considered the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in a 1982 case, Myers v. Peel Board of Education, which says that the standard of care required of a school board:

“...is that of a careful and prudent parent… who will not expose his or her child to an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm.”

Ultimately the Court in Tylor’s case found that there was not enough to connect the school’s inaction in the previous assault to the assault against Tylor. In coming to this conclusion, the Court notes that seven uneventful months passed between the incidents.

Bullying a problem

I believe it is clear that bullying and other violence has become an increasing problem in our schools. What is not clear is what the appropriate response should be to the problem.

Policies and programs differ between schools, school boards, and provinces. Without a national, coordinated approach these types of claims are going to be determined on a case by case basis depending on the facts of each case and similar cases are going to end up with different results.

Feedback

What do you think about the Court’s decision in Tylor’s case? Should school boards be liable for the wrongdoings of students?

What if the school did not take appropriate disciplinary measures against the offending student on previous occasions?

What are "appropriate" disciplinary measures?

Let me know what you think by leaving a comment below.

Researchers have requested that the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug Diclofenac be taken off shelves due to increased heart risks.

The drug, is sold under many brand names including Cataflam, Voltaren and Voltarol, and is only available by prescription in Canada and the United States.

Diclofenac is sold over-the-counter in many other countries including the U.K., Australia and Japan.

Diclofenac is typically used to treat mild to moderate chronic pain treat from headaches, arthritis and dental procedures. It is supposedly most effective when there is inflammation present.

Cardiac risks

However, several recent studies have shown that Diclofenac increases the risk of heart attack and stroke. The effects of the drug cause an imbalance in prostaglandins which increases the risk of blood clotting.

Researcher and clinical pharmacologist, Dr. David Henry, is quoted as saying:

“...this is a drug that has about the same risk of causing heart attacks as a drug called Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market eight years ago because of this adverse effect."

Vioxx, which is the brand name for Rofecoxib, was also an anti-inflammatory which was taken off of the market in 2004 due to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke in patients. Vioxx has faced numerous lawsuits and class actions as a result of thousands of cases of injury or death attributed to use of the drug.

Two other anti-inflammatory medications, Celebrex and Bextra, were taken off the market in 2005 for the same reasons.

The U.S. National Institute of Health listing for Diclofenac contains an “IMPORTANT WARNING” that states:

"People who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (other than aspirin) such as diclofenac may have a higher risk of having a heart attack or a stroke than people who do not take these medications."

What should you do?

If you are taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication of any kind, you should discuss any concerns with your family doctor. Your doctor needs to be aware if you have any history of heart problems or stroke in your family that may put you at increased risk.

Bottom line: It is always better for your health care professionals to have more information than less information and whenever you have a question or concern, ask your doctor!

Affordable Scanner Detects Brain Injury

Prominent Dalhousie University neuroscientist, Ryan D’Arcy, hopes to use his portable Halifax Consciousness Scanner to assess concussions and brain injuries at hockey rinks and hospitals.

His state-of-the-art scanner uses brain-wave patterns to detect brain damage. Addressing its applicability to hockey, D’Arcy explains that his device could be used pre-season to determine the normal brain function of the athletes. Then, following a hit, the device could quickly determine if there is any deviation.

A miniaturized version of the scanner is scheduled to be available later this year for under $500. Considering the extravagant expenses of MRI scanners and other such tools, D’Arcy believes that his relatively affordable device could become popular for detecting brain injuries.

Un-cheatable test

As crazy as it may sound to some of us, some professional athletes will deliberately botch their baseline concussion tests at the beginning of a season. This means that, after a blow to the head, the athlete’s cognitive abilities will still fall within the (incorrect) lower baseline range.

The co-inventor of the Halifax Consciousness Scanner, Dr. Donald Weaver, notes that the scanner is cheat-proof. By focussing on the brain-waves and judging the brain’s responses to different sounds, the scanner assesses the change in the athlete’s brain. Dr. Weaver says that you cannot fake your brain’s responses.

Dangers of the game

I’ve written before about the dangers of concussions in sports, and some ways to test for, and hopefully prevent, concussions and repeat concussions. Here's a link to my recent article Sudden Impact for Lawyers Weekly magazine.

I certainly hope that the Halifax Consciousness Scanner can help future athletes determine quickly whether or not they have suffered a concussion and to what extent. If it proves effective, the scanner will ideally become available for amateur athletes – and hopefully school teams will soon have them available at the sideline/bench. I look forward to reading about advances in this new technology.

The Halifax Mooseheads start the second round of the playoffs tonight against the Olympiques. The Mooseheads have had an incredible season, setting numerous team and league records in the process.

Marty Frk is one of the major reasons they have done so well, scoring 84 points this season. But he knows what it is like to be down and out.

Last season Marty suffered a terrible concussion and was forced to sit out for over 3 months. The 19-year-old winger said it was the toughest time of his life.

Recovering from concussion

Even after he was cleared to play Marty struggled to find his form. Throughout the remainder of last season he never really got into the groove. In the playoffs he fell into a slump that saw him post just 1-point and a minus-7 rating in the last 7 games.

Frk says that the return to the lineup was almost as tough as the time he spent out with a concussion. Fortunately for him, Frk has made a full recovery and has established himself as one of the elite players in the league. Drafted 49th overall by the Detroit Red Wings in the 2012 NHL Draft, the hockey world has big expectations for Marty.

Others not so lucky

Concussions can end careers. Many of us remember the fate of Eric Lindros. He led the Flyers to the Stanley Cup finals in 1997, but was forced to retire early due to a concussion he suffered in the 2000 playoffs.

The world was reminded of the dangers and difficulties of concussions when superstar Sidney Crosby was sidelined for months due his injury. In fact I think Crosby's concussion actually helped raise public awareness about the serious consequences of concussions: what I like to call "The Sidney Crosby effect".

We can only hope that the sporting world pays more attention to the plight of these athletes and implements appropriate precautions, testing and takes the right steps to ensure that injured athletes are not exposed to unnecessary risks. Sometimes the best play may be to take the star player out of the game following a big hit.

Like many Haligonians I am happy that Marty Frk is back in the lineup, scoring goals and making big plays. Hopefully this young man goes on to succeed in the NHL and avoids repeating his dreadful concussion experience.

Best of luck Marty and Go Mooseheads!