Timing Matters: When Should a Solicitor Instruct a Neuropsychologist in Devon and Cornwall?
- Feb 7
- 1 min read

The timing of expert instruction can significantly influence the strength and usefulness of neuropsychological evidence. In some cases, there is a delay instructing a neuropsychologist until difficulties become unavoidable — often to the detriment of the claim.
This article considers when neuropsychological instruction is most effective in medicolegal proceedings.
Early Instruction: Advantages and Considerations
Early instruction allows:
Establishment of baseline functioning
Identification of genuine cognitive deficits
Early guidance on rehabilitation and prognosis
It also reduces reliance on retrospective reconstruction of symptoms, which can be problematic under cross-examination.
Risks of Delayed Instruction
Late instruction may result in:
Loss of contemporaneous evidence
Greater diagnostic uncertainty
Increased scope for dispute
Reduced clarity on causation
These issues are particularly relevant in mild traumatic brain injury and disputed cognitive claims.
Balancing Proportionality and Evidential Value
Solicitors must consider proportionality, but neuropsychological evidence is often more cost-effective when obtained early, as it:
Narrows issues in dispute
Informs litigation strategy
Reduces the likelihood of competing expert opinions
Case Complexity as a Guide
Early instruction is particularly advisable where:
Cognitive symptoms are subtle or evolving
There are pre-existing vulnerabilities
Symptom validity may be challenged
Capacity issues are anticipated
Regional Practicalities
In Devon and Cornwall, early planning is essential to avoid delays associated with specialist availability and to ensure assessments occur at an appropriate stage in proceedings.
Timing is a strategic decision, not an administrative one. Solicitors who instruct a medicolegal neuropsychologist early are better positioned to secure clear, defensible evidence and to manage cases efficiently from the outset.
_edited.jpg)


