Defense lawyers use the term “objective” like a dog whistle.  They try to draw a distinction between evidence that should be believed (objective) and evidence that shouldn’t be believed (subjective).

A lot of plaintiff’s attorneys rise to the bait.  Nowhere does this happen with more unfocused frenzy than in brain injury cases.

It’s like golfers trying to improve their games by buying new clubs.  Many plaintiff’s attorneys chase “objective” evidence of brain injury like it’s essential to their cases.

It’s not.

Brain injury is diagnosed based on a simple set of criteria.  Information is relayed to doctors by either the injured person or witnesses.  That’s it.  There doesn’t have to be a blood test, specialized imaging or brain mapping.

There are so many things that we accept that cannot be proven by “objective” evidence.  Do we doubt that a mother loves her child?  Do we doubt Iverson had the best cross-over dribble?  Do we doubt that Henry Sherman took offense why Royal called him “Coltrane?”

Of course not.

Then why do we doubt brain injuries that have or should have been diagnosed?

We don’t doubt them.  That is, at least, until someone tries too hard to provide “objective” evidence of something that is diagnosed clinically based on subjective information.

Sometimes you have to resist the urge to engage.  The urge to scramble for every new and shiny object.  And embrace playing the cards you’re dealt.

There are things that do not have to be proven with “objective” evidence and “certainty” is a goal that can perpetually remain beyond reach.