The medico-legal problems of cranial injuries require a broad assessment of many factors, not always related to the nervous system, and a nicety of judgment in correctly evaluating the role of each factor in relation to all of them.Seizures in the period immediately after trauma are not necessarily precursors of later development of epileptic attacks. If such seizures do occur, it can be said in general, from statistical data, that the sooner they occur after injury the less the likelihood of disabling attacks later. It would seem a reasonable medical probability that if a patient has no neurological symptoms or deficit, has a normal electroencephalogram and has gone two years after injury without evidence of seizures, he will not have epilepsy.Putting a label of “post-traumatic epilepsy” on a patient, unless he is known to have had authentic seizures, may stigmatize him without warrant and lead to unjust settlement of litigation or to unreasonable compensation awards. In doubtful cases, perhaps an equitable solution of compensation for damage would be to award an insurance policy providing suitable payments if disabling seizures should develop later as a sequel of cranial injury.
展开▼
