The Glasgow Coma Scale: A disconnect between medical documentation and traumatic brain injury litigation in the United States

Abstract

Traumatic brain injuries are consistently difficult to objectively measure. This creates significant challenges for medical and legal practitioners who each apply the Glasgow Coma Scale-based traumatic brain injury severity classifications of “mild”, “moderate” and “severe”. It can be difficult to medically define an often-subjective traumatic brain injury, where the law requires objective evidence of injuries. This descriptive review aims to elucidate the intended purpose of the Glasgow Coma Scale in traumatic brain injury assessment by doctors and attorneys. We highlight two different Glasgow Coma Scale uses, demonstrating a disconnect between the clinical traumatic brain injury adjectival classifications used in medicine and law. The Glasgow Coma Scale-based adjectival traumatic brain injury classifications create a diagnostic label which can affect a patient long after their initial medical assessment, representing a de facto diagnosis to the legal profession which may affect a patient’s potential legal financial recovery.