A physical therapist treats a patient who has a closed head injury and is in the confused-agitated level of cognitive functioning. The therapist treats the patient in their home for 60 minute sessions, three times per week. Recently the therapist has noticed that the patient becomes increasingly combative as the session progresses and believes the deterioration in behavior is linked to the patient becoming fatigued. Which of the following treatment modifications is the MOST appropriate to assist in reducing patient fatigue?

Jimmy Swaggert was a suspect in the murder of his girlfriend, and his rival’s ex-spouse, Tammy Faye. The police found Tammy Faye in the basement of Swaggert’s home. Her death was apparently the result of blows to the head from a blunt object. Swaggert initially told police that he knew nothing of what happened, that Tammy Faye must have been murdered by an intruder while he slept upstairs, and that he did not want to cooperate further. A few days after the murder, Swaggert called Detective Angley to get an update on the investigation. Angley invited Swaggert to come to the police station to talk things over. Swaggert went to the police station where he met with Angley in a small room with only a table and some chairs. Angley told Swaggert that he was not under arrest and gave him Miranda warnings. Swaggert then signed a Miranda waiver form and agreed to take a polygraph exam. After the polygraph was administered Angley asked some preliminary questions and then advised Swaggert that he failed the polygraph. This was an exaggeration since the test revealed only that it was unclear whether Swaggert was telling the truth. At that point Swaggert said that he would like to get an attorney. Angley said “you may or may not need a lawyer, I don’t know. You should just tell the truth because it will set you free.” Swaggert then admitted that he sometimes fought with Tammy Faye but that he did not kill her. Swaggert then stood up and left the police station. Over the next few weeks the police developed further evidence linking Swaggert to the murder of Tammy Faye and Swaggert was arrested. At Swaggert’s trial he moved to suppress his statements. Swaggert’s statement is:

A high school athlete is being treated for a recent concussion (4 days ago) in an outpatient setting. They are still experiencing vestibular symptoms including significant dizziness (6/10) and imbalance with dynamic movement. Which of the following aerobic exercises would be BEST to initiate with this athlete?

The healthcare team is meeting to determine whether an athlete, who sustained a concussion two weeks ago, is ready to return to play. The athlete is a high school running back and is no longer experiencing symptoms at rest. They are able to participate in all concussion testing and school activities without onset or exacerbation of symptoms. They have not yet fully participated in practice. Which of the following would be the BEST determination for this athlete returning to play? 

When treating a person with a traumatic brain injury in the ICU, how should the patient be positioned when an ICP monitor is in place?

A patient sustained a severe TBI in a fall 3 months ago. They present at wheelchair level totally dependent for all ADL’s and mobility tasks. They are alert for brief periods of time throughout the day. When alert, they can visually track a bright object, reach for an object intermittently to command, and turn their head to their name. They are not demonstrating signs of restlessness or agitation. Based on this information, the patient is MOST likely in which state of consciousness / Ranchos Level?

It was about 6:30 on a Friday night in January when Phoenix Police Det. Kemp Layden pulled over a white Jeep Cherokee that was speeding and weaving in and out of its lane. The 47-year-old driver, Harriette Knapp, spoke slowly, her eyes were red and watery, and her pupils were dilated. The inside of the Jeep reeked of marijuana, and Ms. Knapp failed a field sobriety test, which included walking heel-to-toe and standing on one leg. Ms. Knapp told the officer she had smoked marijuana a few hours earlier and taken a prescription sedative the night before. Ms. Knapp passed a portable breath test — she wasn’t drunk. But Layden suspected she was impaired by drugs, which the test can’t detect. A DUI police van equipped with a special chair and table for blood testing pulled up. Ms. Knapp refused to submit to a blood draw. So Layden grabbed his laptop and filled out an electronic warrant, or e-warrant, which was transmitted directly to a judge. The warrant application contained all of the above information. Within 10 minutes, Layden had a search warrant. Another officer drew Ms. Knapp’s blood. A lab report later confirmed she had active THC and a sedative in her blood. Police photographed and fingerprinted Ms. Knapp and issued her a citation for DUI. It took 79 minutes from the time she was stopped until the issuance of the citation. At that point Ms. Knapp was released and she returned to her vehicle to wait for a friend to pick her up to take her home. Her vehicle was about 100 feet from the DUI police van. During the blood draw process Officer Layden gave police dispatch Ms. Knapp’s name. Dispatchers discovered that Ms. Knapp had an outstanding warrant for her arrest and informed Officer Layden. By then Ms. Knapp had already left the DUI police van and was at her vehicle. Officer Layden approached Ms. Knapp and asked her to come back to the DUI police van. He instructed her that she could not leave because he had to arrest her. Ms. Knapp exited the truck and followed Officer Layden back to the DUI police van. Ms. Knapp voluntarily retrieved her purse from the seat of the Jeep when she followed Officer Layden back to the DUI police van. Because the officers were still concluding their investigation, Officer Layden asked Ms. Knapp to sit on a chair outside the DUI police van. Ms. Knapp sat down and placed her purse on the ground next to her. Once Ms. Knapp sat down, Officer Layden moved her purse, which was closed by a zipper, a few feet away from her. At this point Ms. Knapp’s friend arrived to take Ms. Knapp home. Ms. Knapp then asked her friend to take her purse so she would not have to take it to jail. This raised the Officer Layden’s suspicions. When her friend — who was originally willing to take her purse — declined, after being warned by Officer Layden that taking it could be illegal, Ms. Knapp tried to leave it in the Jeep she had been driving. However, Officer Layden refused to let her leave her purse in the Jeep. Officer Layden then asked for her consent to search the purse but she refused. Officer Layden then placed Ms. Knapp in handcuffs behind her back and led her to his nearby patrol car. Officer Layden carried Ms. Knapp’s purse. At the patrol Ms. Knapp stood in front of the hood facing Officer Layden. Officer Layden placed the purse on the hood of his patrol car. At that time, Ms. Knapp stood near the bumper of the patrol car, the purse was on the hood near the windshield (about three to four feet from Ms. Knapp), and Ms. Knapp stood handcuffed facing away from the car and toward Officer Layden. Ms. Knapp’s friend was on the opposite side of the patrol vehicle. Next, after Officer Layden threatened that she would be guilty of a felony for bringing drugs to a detention center, Ms. Knapp told him she was carrying a pistol in her purse. At that point Officer Layden searched the purse and found her pistol. He found no other contraband. When Officer Layden searched the purse, three other officers were present. Ms. Knapp was charged with one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). She moved to suppress the firearm on Fourth Amendment grounds. The District Court concluded that the entire interaction was valid under Fourth Amendment law and consequently denied the motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of the United States granted Ms. Knapp’s petition for a writ of certiorari agreeing to review all Fourth Amendment issues presented in the facts and law. You represent either the State or Knapp in the case before the Supreme Court of the United States. You have been assigned to write the brief in support of your client’s position on the constitutionality of all issues you can identify from the above fact pattern.  

Officer Manson observed a car driving around University Circle on Euclid Avenue between Ford and East 115th. The car would travel slowly at some points, at other times the car would stop completely, pause for a short time, and then proceed driving. The car would then turn onto the side street, change directions to return to Euclid Avenue and come down the street and repeat the same traffic pattern. Officer Manson observed the vehicle make three separate trips up and down the street. Officer Manson believed that the driver was either looking for a parking space or was waiting for a partner in crime to exit one of the various stores after robbing it. He was not sure which scenario was most likely. On the car’s fourth time up the street, Officer Manson activated his dash cam, turned on his emergency lights, and stopped the vehicle. The car immediately pulled off the road into a city-owned parking lot. The stop of the car was:

The brain of a person that had dementia is examined post-mortem. The report indicates that there was global atrophy of the cerebral cortex, neurofibrillary tangles of tau protein, and accumulation of beta-amyloid plaques. Which type of dementia is this MOST consistent with?

Which of the following cranial nerve palsies is this patient experiencing?