Neurological Injury Resulting from Coercive Legal and Institutional Processes (Lesão neurológica resultante de processos legais e institucionais coercitivos) by Carey Ann George
Lesão neurológica resultante de processos legais e institucionais coercitivos
Carey Ann George
16 de janeiro, 2026
Toward Recognition of Neurological Battering as a Compensable Injury
Executive Summary
This paper proposes recognition of a new, currently unaddressed category of compensable injury: neurological battering, defined as measurable biological harm resulting from prolonged exposure to coercive authority or institutional processes that prevent resolution, escape, or restoration of safety.
Advances in neuroscience, psychoneuroimmunology, endocrinology, and trauma medicine demonstrate that chronic threat without discharge causes structural and functional injury to the nervous system, immune system, and multiple organ systems.
These injuries are not speculative, subjective, or limited to emotional distress; they are diagnosable, durable, and economically devastating.
Despite this, existing legal frameworks misclassify such harm as “emotional distress” or deny redress entirely due to immunity doctrines, fragmentation of duty, or failure to recognize cumulative injury.
This paper outlines:
• the scientific basis for neurological battering as injury
• why existing causes of action fail
• a model legal framework for recognition
• evidentiary standards
• damages valuation
• pathways for doctrinal development
I. The Problem: Invisible Injury in Plain Sight
Courts routinely encounter plaintiffs who exhibit:
• cognitive decline
• autonomic dysfunction
• immune collapse or autoimmunity
• endocrine disruption
• cardiovascular injury
• musculoskeletal and dental degeneration
• loss of earning capacity
• shortened life expectancy
Yet where the precipitating force is procedural, institutional, or coercive rather than physical, the law lacks a coherent mechanism for accountability.
Litigation abuse, prolonged family court proceedings, administrative captivity, and court-enabled coercive control create conditions of chronic threat without resolution, a state now well understood to produce biological injury.
II. Scientific Foundation: Chronic Threat as Biological Injury
A. Neurological Mechanisms
When threat is ongoing and inescapable:
• the sympathetic nervous system remains persistently activated
• parasympathetic repair mechanisms are suppressed
• cortisol rhythms flatten or spike erratically
• neural plasticity reorganizes around danger
This results in:
• impaired executive function
• hypervigilance or collapse states
• sleep disorder
• pain amplification
• autonomic instability
This process is increasingly referred to in clinical literature as neurological battering.
B. Psychoneuroimmunology and Systemic Damage
The nervous system governs immune signaling. Chronic dysregulation produces:
• low-grade systemic inflammation
• immune confusion or autoimmunity
• impaired tissue repair
• mineral metabolism disruption
• accelerated degeneration of bone, teeth, and connective tissue
These outcomes are observable, testable, and repeatable across populations subjected to prolonged coercive stress.
III. Why Existing Legal Frameworks Fail
A. Emotional Distress Claims Are Inadequate
IIED and NIED frameworks:
• trivialize biological injury
• impose unrealistically high conduct thresholds
• treat harm as subjective
• cap damages
• fail to capture cumulative exposure
They are not designed for systemic injury caused by prolonged authority-driven threat.
B. Civil Rights Claims Are Structurally Blocked
Civil rights litigation often fails due to:
• judicial and quasi-judicial immunity
• narrow interpretations of due process injury
• procedural defenses
• reluctance to recognize bodily harm absent physical force
This creates a remedial vacuum.
C. Malpractice and Negligence Are Fragmented
Institutional harm is rarely caused by a single actor. Instead, it emerges from:
• systems
• policies
• incentives
• cumulative procedural decisions
Negligence doctrines struggle to assign duty and causation in these environments.
IV. Proposed Legal Model: Neurological Battering as Injury
A. Definition
Neurological battering is defined as:
Measurable neurological, immunological, and systemic bodily injury resulting from prolonged exposure to coercive authority or institutional processes that activate chronic threat physiology while preventing resolution or escape.
B. Elements of the Claim (Model)
A claimant must establish:
1. Prolonged Coercive Exposure
Sustained interaction with an authority or institution exercising power over fundamental rights or safety.
2. Inability to Exit to Resolve
Structural barriers preventing meaningful relief or escape.
3. Physiological Injury
Documented neurological, immune, endocrine, or systemic decline.
4. Temporal Correlation
Injury onset or acceleration corresponding to exposure period.
5. Expert-Corroborated Mechanism
Medical testimony linking chronic threat physiology to observed injury.
This mirrors toxic exposure and repetitive stress injury framework
V. Evidence Framework
A. Medical Evidence
• pre/post medical records
• neuroimaging where available
• autonomic testing
• inflammatory and endocrine markers
• dental and skeletal degeneration
• sleep studies
B. Procedural Evidence
• litigation timelines
• volume and nature of filings
• repeated denials or delays
• lack of meaningful remedy
• coercive orders or sanctions
• documented power imbalance
C. Economic Evidence
• loss of earning capacity
• medical expenses (past/future)
• caregiving costs
• disability valuation
VI. Damages: Proper Characterization
Damages must be framed as:
• catastrophic injury
• permanent impairment
• loss of neurological function
• reduced lifespan
• loss of parental role as biological injury
• lifelong medical dependency
This is not pain and suffering.
This is loss of bodily integrity.
VII. Defendants and Liability Theory
Potential defendants include:
• institutions
• municipalities
• court-adjacent professionals
• contractors operating under color of law
• insurers
• enterprise actors
Liability theories may include:
• enterprise liability
• Monell-style policy causation
• pattern-and-practice harm
• joint and several responsibility
VIII. Pathways for Doctrinal Adoption
This area of law will likely emerge through:
• pilot litigation
• law review scholarship
• expert consensus
• legislative acknowledgment
• federal constitutional framing
Resistance is expected.
Precedent follows persistence.
IX. Conclusion
The harm exists.
The science is clear.
The fact patterns repeat.
The damages are catastrophic.
The law’s failure to recognize neurological battering as injury is no longer defensible.
Recognition is not radical.
It is overdue.
Carey Ann George
Mind-Body Integration Expert | Psychoneuroimmunology ND
READ ALSO :
Brain Scans Save the Day: Oregon Family Court Slammed by New Evidence
After SPECT Imaging Confirms Traumatic Abuse, Flanigan Kids Are Spared Return to Alleged Abuser
Richard Luthmann, Michael Volpe, and Jill Jones-Soderman, FCVFC.org
Apr 08, 2025
Portland, Oregon’s embattled family court system blinked—for once—in the face of science.
Thanks to cutting-edge brain imaging and the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC) advocacy, protective mother Martina Flanigan won a critical round in court. Her children, long at risk of being forced back into the custody of their allegedly abusive father, were not returned to him.
The turning point was a detailed SPECT scan from the Amen Clinic interpreted by nationally renowned neurologist Dr. S. Gregory Hipskind, MD, PhD.
BRAIN SCANS SAVE THE DAY: SCIENCE STOPS THE COVER-UP
Dr. Hipskind’s scan revealed undeniable evidence of traumatic brain injury (TBI), consistent with strangulation and physical abuse.
The report described “very abnormal” brain activity, with patterns matching what the literature associates with “diffuse traumatic axonal injury and an anoxic process.”
On The Unknown Podcast, FCVFC Director Jill Jones Soderman revealed the gravity of what was almost allowed to happen.
“DCF wanted these kids back with a man they’ve accused of physical and sexual abuse,” Soderman said. “They were claiming the mother was delusional—until the science shut them down.”
She said the scan gave indisputable biological proof that backed up years of verbal, written, and video-recorded disclosures from the children.
BRAIN SCANS SAVE THE DAY: A COURT THAT IGNORED FACTS
For months, Portland social worker Steven Jackson pushed for reunification with the father. Jackson’s reports ignored the children’s consistent claims of abuse and instead portrayed Flanigan as the problem.
FC filed formal complaints accusing Jackson of suppressing evidence, intimidating witnesses, and spreading defamatory lies. Jackson allegedly stalked Flanigan’s family, leaked confidential case details, and lied under oath.
Soderman said his conduct fits a larger pattern of power abuse and potential misuse of Title IV-D and IV-E funding.
“Jackson acts like a bounty hunter,” said co-host Richard Luthmann on the podcast. “His motive? Money. If both parents are declared unfit, and the kids are placed in state custody, the money flows.”
Title IV-E provides states federal cash for each child in foster care. Title IV-D incentivizes aggressive child support enforcement. Critics say these laws have turned children into commodities.
“These programs were designed to protect kids,” Luthmann said. “Now they’re used to pad state budgets.”
BRAIN SCANS SAVE THE DAY: CAN DOGE AND DATA BLOW THIS OPEN?
Journalist Michael Volpe previously called on the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to investigate.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário