Technically I think it should affect such insurance policies - I know I definitely have an increased risk of future serious health issues and always will.

However this may be one case where the ignorance of most health professionals regarding head injury works in our favour. Since most of them seem to think, contrary to evidence, that once you recover from a head injury there is no lasting underlying damage or susceptibility, it shouldn't be hard to get one of them to state that you have no health problems, as long as you have become symptom free.

Similarly, I was head injured at work and my employer refused to pay me during my time off sick. During my confused initial state they had got me to admit to previous concussions and that I thought that these had played a part in making me susceptible to my current injury. They then argued that because I had been injured before they had no responsibility to give me any sick pay.

When I was well enough to think properly I got my neurologist to write a letter saying that there was no evidence that any previous concussions had played a part in my current injury, and copied it to them and the union - and eventually got paid. Although I don't actually agree with what the neurologist wrote, his letter was worth about £3,000 that I needed for my rent - and would probably help me get insurance in the future as well.

Obviously basing such claims or policy on faulty evidence of this sort is far from ideal, but we get little enough support as it is and I think we need all the breaks we can get. If we have to suffer with supposed experts who don't understand head injury the least we can do is use it to our advantage when the opportunity arises.