Page 6 - November 2020 Newsletter - Lawyers Edition
P. 6
>>> FROM PAGE 5
New Evidence
If any Party to the Appeal has new evidence
not submitted to the Claims Administrator
before the Claims Administrator issued the
Appealable Notice that it wishes considered
on the Appeal, it must identify such evidence
and submit it to the Claims Administrator along
with the submission by that Party in which it
wishes to include the new evidence.
The Special Master will determine whether Published Decisions by the Special Master
to permit the Party to introduce the new
evidence. If the Special Master determines e post all decisions the Special Masters designate to be published on the Settlement
not to allow introduction of the new evidence,
the Appeal will proceed without it and no WWebsite (under “Documents” click “Special Master” below “Published Decisions”). To
Party to the Appeal may refer to or rely upon preserve confidentiality, we remove all personal identifying information before making them
it. If the Special Master determines to allow available on the website. Click here to read the decisions published so far. We encourage you
introduction of the new evidence, the Special to check the Settlement Website often and read any new decisions because they serve as
Master may remand the Claim to the Claims guidance for the consideration of the same or similar issues and principles in later decisions.
Administrator under Rule 24 for re-review One recent Special Master ruling that affects Monetary Award Claims is now on the site:
using the new evidence (Rule 23(c)), or may
provide an opportunity to the Party to the Deviation from BAP Criteria
Appeal to respond to such evidence.
On October 28, 2020, the Special Master BAP criteria. Though it is true that some test
issued contextually similar decisions for variables overlap, the AAP’s analysis is more
six claimants, represented by the same law individuated and focuses on the goals of the
There are also Appeals FAQs firm, who each were evaluated by the same tests and their relationship to establishing a
in the FAQs (Frequently Asked neuropsychologist using a non-conforming reliable and meaningful exam. As the AAP
Questions) section of the neuropsychological test battery and were concluded, “no reasonable substitutes”
Settlement Website to help diagnosed with Level 2 Neurocognitive existed for important parts of the Settlement’s
explain these Rules and their Impairment by the same physician. The evaluative exams, the doctor’s methods
implementation. If you have Special Master explained that the Claims did not provide internal indicia of validity in
questions about the Appeals Administrator and its expert advisors must the way that the Settlement requires, and
process, please share them with evaluate both the test battery as a whole the doctor paid no attention to qualitative
us by phone or email. and its application to each claimant to evidence of validity through the Slick criteria.
determine if a claimant’s diagnosis is generally
consistent with the BAP requirements. The Click here to read one of the six decisions on
AAP determined that these claimants’ test deviation from BAP Criteria.
battery was not generally consistent with the
6 INSIGHTS Lawyers Edition November 2020 November 2020 INSIGHTS Lawyers Edition 7
