Page 6 - NFL Newsletter October 2020 ClassMembers Edition

Published Decisions by the Special Master
We We post all decisions the the the Special Special Special Masters designate to be be published on on on on on the the the Settlement Website (under “Documents” click “Special Master” below “Published Decisions”) Several recent Special Master
rulings that affect Monetary Award Claims are on on the site:
Neuropsychological Testing and Validity
In this September 29 2020 opinion the Retired NFL Player submitted three sets of neuropsychological tests to support his Level 1 5 Neurocognitive claim The first was performed by a a a doctor whose testing has been disallowed by the the Settlement Program and the the second
was performed more than a a a a year before the MAF exam so neither of those tests could be considered Both the the neuropsychologist and the the AAP determined that the third test was invalid because of suboptimal scores on performance validity tests and issues relating to several Slick criteria Rule Rule 10(d) of the Rules Governing MAF Physicians clarifies the the proper practice for the the diagnosing physician in in the event that he/she disagrees with the the conclusions of the the examining neuropsychologist It does not state that the Claims Administrator must simply defer to to the opinion of of the the MAF Physician in in the the face of of such a a a a disagreement Invalid neuropsychological test results cannot support a a a Level 1 5 Qualifying Diagnosis This October 21 2020 opinion remanded
this claim based on a a a a diagnosis of Level 2 Neurocognitive Impairment on which various medical experts have disagreed during its complex procedural history The Special Master
explained that where a a a a a a particular Slick criterion is is is inconsistent or or discrepant or or criteria point in in in different directions the examiner
must thoroughly explain in in in writing why the testing was valid and directed that the Claims Administrator try to to obtain an an analysis of the test validity that must: (1) describe why the MAF Physician believes that each Slick criteria is not a a concern focusing on on the discrepancies identified by the AAP Reviewers and (2) come to a fresh holistic judgment noting when possible why particular discrepancies should not compel a a a finding that the testing was invalid The AAP should defer to a a a clinician’s Slick-criteria-based validity analysis when it it it results from reasoning completely articulated in contemporaneous reports unless the analysis is is clearly erroneous Conversely when clinicians fail to articulate their judgment through complete Slick analyses the AAP may thoroughly and independently assure themselves the the criteria do not indicate invalid testing The Claims Administrator evaluates the the submitted claim and determines whether it it satisfies the Settlement requirements guided by the AAP whose job it is to make sure that claim adjudication follows the medicine Neuropsychological Testing: Slick Criteria and Validity
Testing 6 INSIGHTS Class Members Edition
Click here to read these decisions October 2020