Answer Brief of Appellee - Florida State University College of Law

subject’s scan to the “normals” to be valid (and for it to mean
anything), it must be from the same scanner and the data must
have been acquired using an identical protocol. (R1455).
Hoskins’ neurological exam (on the PET scan) was normal as were
the results from a CT scan and an EEG. (R1494). Results from a
“quantitative” EEG (conducted by Dr. Weiss) indicated a result
that was “mildly abnormal.” (R1494). 11 However, Hoskins’ actions
were not those of a person who suffers from a frontal lobe
abnormality. (R1496).
In Hoskin’s PET scan, one side of the visual cortex showed
up as a “hot spot,” which means that the metabolic rate was
highest in that specific region of his brain. (R1479). Dr.
Mayberg did not have enough information to determine why this
occurred, but did know that one side of the visual cortex would
not be “activated” (i.e., showing increased metabolism) if
Hoskins was following the instructions given to him for the
administration of the test. (R1480-81). For the purposes of
evaluation the metabolic rate of the various parts of Hoskins’
brain, the relative intensity of the different areas is “scaled”
relative to the “hottest” spot, which, in this case, was the
visual cortex. 12 (R1482). The scale of metabolic activity is
11
A “quantitative” EEG is different from a “regular” EEG.
12
There was an equally hot spot in Hoskins’ eye muscles, which,
of course, are not his brain at all. (R1485).
19