Category Archives: State Law

New Safety Measures Take Effect for Stunt Performers

Box office success proves that people relish characters’ overcoming unbelievably intimidating or frightening physical odds in film. However, for the stunt performers who perform these acts, the imbedded danger can be very real. An Ohio University study published in 2023 by the NIH reveals stunt risk: 80% of film and television stunt performers have experienced head impacts. Of that high percentage, 86% showed concussion-like symptoms. (This percentage is likely much higher than industry professionals would think, as there is also a 2024 NIH-published report Stunt performers’ reluctance to self-report head trauma.)

Based on statistics and the increased public concern about production safety, California signed into law SB 132 in July 2023. While this bill was not effective until this past July, the Income taxes: tax credits: motion pictures: occupational safety: California Film Commission mandates safety advisors and risk assessments for tax-credit productions, specifically stating, “[it] would require the safety advisor to prepare a final safety evaluation report based on the actual risk and compliance experience.” Georgia now requires, “major studio filming… [to] assign a safety officer to a feature length production as part of a pilot program.” New York has also developed a similar pilot safety officer program in 2025.

The film industry, at large, has also taken action, as SAG-AFTRA now requires 500 days’ experience for stunt coordinators. Beyond performer safety concern, this enhanced attention to the issue of stunt trauma is based on simple financial calculations, as lawsuits underscore the stakes. HBO settled with stuntman Casey Michaels for $9.4 million in 2023. Fast & Furious 9 producers also faced $1 million in fines after stuntman Joe Watts suffered traumatic brain injury.

While new laws and highlighted attention are a positive sign, stunt safety remains difficult to assess. An exploratory study found in the NIH database, Head Trauma and Concussions in Film and Television Stunt Performers, alarmingly found that fear of job loss meant that 65% continued working while symptomatic.) “Concussion seems to be a serious occupational health issue in stunt performers,” stated Dr. Jeffrey Russell, researcher at Ohio University. This somewhat dismissive statement shows that action is needed to protect both the stunt performers and the studios’ bottom line.

Cursive Writing Benefits to Students & the Brain Injured

Cursive writing functions as a complex motor skill that can remarkably persist even when brain injury patients lose explicit memory of how to perform it. This surprising phenomenon occurs because cursive engages procedural memory systems stored in the basal ganglia and cerebellum, which often remain intact when other cognitive functions are impaired. Recent NIH-funded research demonstrates that “attempting to write each letter produces a unique pattern of activity in the brain,” as Stanford’s Dr. Frank Willett explained in a 2025 study. A comprehensive 2025 analysis published by the NIH found that cursive writing creates enhanced connectivity across motor, visual, and memory regions.

For brain injury survivors, studies suggest cursive practice offers superior rehabilitation benefits. Unlike typing, which “relies on repetitive finger movements,” cursive engages “fine motor coordination and smooth transitions between letters,” activating broader neural networks crucial for recovery, according to recent university research. The continuous motor control required for cursive helps rebuild damaged neural pathways and enhances fine motor skills essential for rehabilitation.

Currently, many states have been dropping cursive instruction as a curriculum requirement, but recent neurological evidence has prompted policy reversals. New Jersey State Senator Angela McKnight recently advanced legislation requiring cursive proficiency by fifth grade, stating: “We’re doing our children a disservice by not teaching them a vital skill they will need for the rest of their lives.” California, Kentucky, and New Hampshire have reinstated requirements after recognizing cursive’s cognitive benefits. This resurgence reflects growing understanding that cursive writing enhances memory retention, motor control, and neural integration—benefits particularly valuable for cognitive development and including for those with a brain injury.

Holly’s Trauma May Prevent Others from Neurological Harm

Holly, a single mother of three, was brutally beaten unconscious while trying to intervene in a downtown Cincinnati street fight on July 26 at around 3 a.m. Violently slammed to the ground by the attackers, she was left with severe injuries including neurological damage, specifically a concussion and vision problems.

In subsequent media appearances, Holly described the assault as “attempted murder” rather than just an incident, criticizing police for their inadequate response. She also expressed frustration that despite suffering life-threatening injuries, as of the date of her viral response, she had not been contacted by Cincinnati officials, apologizing for the attack.

Six individuals have been arrested in connection with the brutal beating that was witnessed by approximately 100 bystanders, though only one person called 911 for help.

In response, on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno introduced “Holly’s Act” – proposed legislation aimed at ending what he calls the justice system’s “revolving door” for repeat offenders. The act would raise minimum sentences and bail requirements for violent criminals, ensuring those with extensive criminal records cannot easily return to the streets.  Additionally, “[He] will convene the federal agencies that provide money to Cincinnati and ask them to suspend federal funding until [the city council and the mayor have] a plan in place.”

Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval called Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno’s response “extremely disappointing,” stating that threats to suspend federal funding constitute “political theater” designed to harm residents. The mayor defended the city’s existing public safety initiatives, including drone programs and walking patrols, while acknowledging more work needed to be done downtown.

Holly supports the legislation, hoping her traumatic experience will be a catalyst to prevent similar attacks and improve police staffing statewide.

Texas First to Fund New Psychedelic Research

Texas has made history by becoming the first state to allocate significant public funding for psychedelic medicine research. Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2308 into law in June 2025, committing $50 million to FDA-approved clinical trials of ibogaine, a psychedelic compound derived from an African shrub.

The groundbreaking legislation represents the largest government investment in psychedelic research to date, positioning Texas as a global leader in this emerging field. The initiative aims to develop FDA-approved treatments for opioid addiction, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and PTSD—conditions that have devastated countless lives across America.

Rick Perry’s Pivotal Role

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry has emerged as an unlikely but passionate advocate for ibogaine research. His involvement began through his relationship with Navy SEAL veterans Marcus and Morgan Luttrell, who found relief from combat-related trauma through ibogaine treatment in Mexico. After witnessing their remarkable recoveries, Perry dedicated himself to advancing this cause, even launching the nonprofit Americans for Ibogaine.

“I’ve spent most of my adult life in public service, and few things have moved me like what I’ve witnessed with this psychedelic drug,” Perry wrote in a recent op-ed, describing how ibogaine helped veterans overcome years of opioid dependence and psychological trauma.

Promising Results for Brain Injury

Recent Stanford Medicine research found that ibogaine, when combined with magnesium for heart protection, safely reduced PTSD symptoms by 88%, depression by 87%, and anxiety by 81% in combat veterans with traumatic brain injuries. The treatment appears to promote neuroplasticity, potentially helping the brain repair itself after injury.

While primarily focused on veterans, the research could benefit anyone suffering from brain trauma, including athletes with concussion-related injuries and accident victims. Texas’s historic investment may lead the way to finally bringing this promising treatment to American patients who have long traveled abroad seeking relief.

Texas SB 2308: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2308

MO Brings Oxygen into TBI Recovery

Missouri has demonstrated remarkable commitment to our veterans with the ratification of SB 664 on July 14, 2025.  The “Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment and Recovery Act,” was passed with overwhelming support of 33-0 in the Senate and 156-1 in the House. Governor Mike Kehoe signed this groundbreaking legislation on Monday, establishing a fund to reimburse Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) facilities treating veterans with TBI or PTSD, recognizing the treatment’s potential to combat veteran suicide and opioid addiction. The initiative represents a projected investment exceeding $5 million annually, underscoring the state’s confidence in this therapeutic approach.

HBOT works by delivering 100% oxygen in pressurized chambers at 1.4-3 times normal atmospheric pressure, dramatically increasing oxygen delivery to damaged brain tissues. Advocates report that this treatment “stimulates brain wound healing and can reverse soft tissue and neurocognitive damage” without requiring invasive surgery or pharmaceutical interventions. Patients can “experience recovery of cognitive and neurological functioning” through this non-invasive approach.

Clinical research has yielded encouraging results across multiple studies. For moderate-to-severe TBI cases, several high-quality studies demonstrated statistically significant improvements in consciousness recovery compared to standard care alone. Research has consistently shown better Glasgow Outcome Scale scores and reduced mortality rates in HBOT treatment groups. A comprehensive 2016 review highlighted that “most successes occurred within hours after TBI,” emphasizing the importance of early intervention. Particularly compelling evidence comes from pediatric research, where a study of 56 children with severe TBI found that HBOT “significantly improved quality of life and reduced complications” compared to control groups. Additional research involving 56 patients showed “significant improvement in symptoms and increased brain activity” measurable through SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography) brain imaging.

The treatment maintains a generally acceptable safety profile, with most side effects being minor and temporary, including ear discomfort, headaches, and fatigue. Serious adverse events remain rare when HBOT is properly administered. This positive safety record, combined with growing clinical evidence and strong legislative support, has led some VA facilities to begin offering HBOT treatment to veterans, representing an important step toward broader acceptance of this promising therapeutic intervention.

Pandemic Accountability

About seven months ago, the U.S. government declared the COVID pandemic “over”.  As part of going forward, on May 9th, 2023, President Biden signed an Executive Order titled, “Moving Beyond COVID-⁠19 Vaccination Requirements for Federal Workers.”  Federal workers previously were required to get the COVID vaccine.  Currently, the vast majority of Americans walk in public without masks or fear.  However, the repercussions of government policies, actions and opinions about COVID-19 linger for some Americans.

Millions of people, in America and beyond, were initially eager to receive the vaccine shot, after their lives had been essentially halted for months due to the unforeseen COVID virus.  Before taking the jab, neither American citizens nor the government had information regarding its long-term effects. Soon after, though, we all became better educated on the topic.  “It was like playing Russian roulette,” said a father about the COVID-19 vaccine.  His previously healthy son died after receiving a dose of the Pfizer vaccine in April 2021.  In Louisiana, another such calamity occurred, this time with the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine.  The healthy 16-year-old woman who received the vaccine shot in April 2021 was left with a brain injury.  “Now, after three brain surgeries and thousands of hours of physical therapy, she struggles to walk, write, and care for herself,” says the lawsuit, filed in Louisiana, about the vaccine’s lifelong consequences for this woman. 

Last year, the federal government even acknowledged the connection between COVID vaccines and brain damage, noting that, “There is a greater than expected occurrence of severe neurological adverse events…following different kinds of COVID-19 vaccinations,” in the aptly titled 2022 report, Neurological Complications Following COVID-19 Vaccination.   Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and others considered to be Big Pharma cannot, under law, be sued for these outcomes and, ultimately, Big Pharma did not mandate the vaccine – that was the purview of the federal and state governments, as well as various individual organizations.  While negative outcomes from the COVID vaccine were rare, they occurred and someone should be held accountable.         

NOTE: Though I penned this article months ago, I never posted it on my site.  If more up-to-date information is available, related specifically to this topic, please comment below.

Call for More Studies, Not Solutions

At the start of 2019, Congress sought to showcase its “great concern” for brain injury, with Congresswoman Joyce Beatty’s (OH) introduction of H.R.280, the Concussion Awareness and Education Act of 2019.  Cosponsored by 36 others, the Bill seeks, “to provide for systemic research, treatment, awareness, and dissemination of information with respect to sports-related and other concussions.”  Specifically, it focuses on children, aged 5 to 21.  It is an admirable goal to care for America’s children, but just like similar bills that seem to go through Congress every year, it just calls for research.  Additionally, once introduced on January 8, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where it still sits without action.

Citizens have expressed their concern over what they see as a lack of concern for the youth, but stateside, similar government pseudo-action seems to be present.  For example, the Salt Lake Tribune wrote, “there’s a dirty little secret plaguing high school sports in Utah.”  According to the newspaper, that “dirty little secret” is the incidence of concussions in high school sports.  In Washington, S.R. 5238, which is currently being considered in State Congress, “would require UW Medicine to publish and maintain a website making… research available to parents,” – again, the government is proposing research, not action.  (Some states have taken legislative action, though, by eliminating certain sports and certain actions in sports.  A bill introduced to Congress in Maryland this month, for example, “would… prohibit cheerleaders age 12 and younger from engaging in aerial stunts.”)

As I have noted in the past, this heightened concern (and, perhaps, this seeming lack of federal action) may be the cause of the decreased sports enrollment in schools.  While that is unfortunate, a positive outcome of this current parental concern could be a heightened concern for sports safety from school districts.  Even without legal mandate, this could lead to a lower concussion percentage rate for the millions of American children who, theoretically, stay on the field and court.

Mercury on the Mind – 2

Following the posting of my last article, I found additional interesting information about mercury and dentistry (dentistry may not be the primary use of mercury, but it is the most visible one).  Although mercury is no longer toxic once it is absorbed into a compound in a dental filling, laws regarding the use, particularly the dental use, of mercury exist.  For example, in New York, the environmental conservation law was amended in 2002 to state, “no dentist shall use or possess elemental mercury in the practice of dentistry unless such elemental mercury is contained in appropriate pre-encapsulated capsules.”

As it relates to a medical procedure that many brain injury survivors undergo, this summer the journal Radiology published an article: High-Strength MRI May Release Mercury from Amalgam Dental Fillings.  Further study of the possible effects of MRIs and mercury, show that while MRIs on someone who has mercury in their body may not cause or cause harm to a brain injury per se, NIH studies, “provide further support for the noxious effect of MRI (exposure to strong magnetic field) and release of mercury from dental amalgam fillings.”  (Additionally, MRIs can harm implants, such as brain stimulators, which may contain mercury.)

(In relation to the use of the ten chemicals of health public concern, particularly as it relates to dentistry, I would also advice people to be wary of fluoride.  The World Health Organization warns of both inadequate or excess fluoride intake.  Just like mercury, fluoride can help teeth at certain levels, but overexposure can lead to such things as tooth decay and skeletal fluorosis.  Smile! New water fluoridation level called for by government read the title of a CNBC article related to the 2015 federal increase in the amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water.  In fact, all articles I found related to this increase were positive.)

Mitigation for Morality and Murder

In the modern world, our understanding of science changes rapidly.  Law, at large, does not change so rapidly.  What has changed, in the past 20 years, is that defense lawyers have begun, during the trial and/or sentencing phases of court, to use brain damage/injury as a mitigating factor for criminal acts.

Brain injury was first introduced as a defense in 1966 for Charles Whitman, the so-called Texas Tower Sniper.  (Whitman stabbed his mother and his wife, shot to death 16 people at the University of Texas at Austin and shot and injured 31 others.  An autopsy upon his death found a tumor in his brain.)  Since the start of this century, the exploration into the effects of brain injury on what some may see as moral quandaries for those with neurological deficits has broadened.  Generally, what has been found is that head injury, specifically a brain lesion, can hinder executive functioning, which governs the ability to plan ahead, think things through, manage impulse, etc.  However, this is basic knowledge that applies to all brain injury survivors; tests specifically related to the unique brains of those who commit criminal acts are inconsistent.

In 2015, the NIH published a report, Does TBI Lead to Criminality?.  Their conclusion states, “The results support a modest causal link between traumatic brain injury and criminality.”  Investigations have shown that while brain injury is not a sufficient defense for a criminal act, it may be a mitigating circumstance in the sentencing phase of a trial – treatment versus incarceration.

Since then, brain damage/injury has often been used as a defense, most recently earlier this month: a convicted murderer in Ohio said, during sentencing, “Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a caring family or outside guidance… I am proof [that] a young person – beaten and abused physically, emotionally, and mentally – becomes the abuser.”   Though the defendant now admits to the killing of five women, the testimony of one of two testifying doctors states that because Kirkland MAY have a brain injury, he should not receive the strictest punishment, the death penalty.

Perhaps, though, the “brain injury” defense will relatively soon become a thing of the past.  The above-mentioned NIH report further concludes, “Reducing the rate of TBI… might have benefits in terms of crime reduction.”  (Since this report was released, more defendants have used brain damage as a mitigating factor for criminal acts.)  According to a UK study, approximately 50 to 70% of the incarcerated population has a brain injury.  That percentage is thought to be in the same realm as those imprisoned in America.  Given these astonishing statistics and the continuing government-sponsored and private research on brain injury prevention and recovery, the NIH’s conclusion seems a definite possibility.

(See also Massachusetts General Hospital – Center for Law, Brain & Behavior, “an academic and professional resource for the education, research, and understanding of neuroscience and the law.”)

Brain Injury to be Revised in ND

To one who has a brain injury and their family and friends, the definition may seem relatively clear – a brain injury is something that disrupts the functioning of the brain.  Nationally, the CDC has only a specific definition of and webpage for traumatic brain injury, whereas the NIH notes that TBI is an acquired brain injury.  To support recovery from all types of brain injury, though, states must first each define what constitutes a brain injury.  In New Jersey, for example, the government-funded Traumatic Brain Injury Fund site states that, “to qualify for the Fund, an individual must have an acquired brain injury; defined as an injury to the brain caused by a blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury/neuro-trauma that disrupts the normal brain function, where continued impairment can be demonstrated.  This definition does not include dysfunction caused by congenital or degenerative disorders, birth trauma, or injuries caused by other circumstances.”  The webpage produced by the New York State government is focused on traumatic brain injury, which they define as, “an injury to the brain or skull caused by an external force, such as a strike or impact.”  One must click further to get a definition of acquired brain injury

As can be seen in New York’s definition, many states define only traumatic brain injury – not acquired brain injury.  While many acquired brain injuries are traumatic, all traumatic brain injuries are acquired.  However, many states do not consider those brain injuries that are not defined as TBIs, such brain insults as strokes, to be a brain injury.  Strokes and other acquired brain injuries, however, often need such things as costly recovery too, which may require government funds.

North Dakota has realized this funding error.  As of last week, “the state legislature’s interim health committee is looking at a draft bill that would change the definition of a brain injury.”  This new definition would change the definition to allow the inclusion of all brain injuries, not only traumatic brain injuries.  Below is the proposed revision, with the crossed-out section noting the old definition:

“‘Brain injury’ means ‘any injury to the brain which occurs after birth and which is acquired through traumatic or nontraumatic insults. The term does not include hereditary, congenital, nontraumatic encephalopathy, nontraumatic aneurysm, stroke, or degenerative brain disorders or injuries induced by birth trauma an insult from physical force or internal damage to the brain or the coverings of the brain which produces an altered mental state and results in a decrease in cognitive, behavioral, emotional, or physical functioning. The term does not include an insult of a degenerative or congenital nature.”

Since it is important to have a full and clear definition in order to gain support, funding and full care for all those in need, it is critical that the North Dakota government votes on this more inclusive bill soon.

Note: If you are aware of an error regarding what I identified as the states’ definitions of brain injury, please comment and it will be researched and rectified.