Here is one of the reports that I had read. On the third page, there are some notations about Terri's improvement. That was in 1991.
I looked over the documents you linked, and also did some other searching.
First, a mea culpa - it looks like it was an error for me to say that she never had an MRI – it appears she did, before the thalamic stimulator was placed.
Now on to the material you reference, which are "snapshots" of a few periods of time:
June of 1990, 5 months after her cardiac arrest. The exam from Bayfront indicates eye contact and threat response (likely a blink to something in front of her face). They describe reports from the family of “verbal output” and note that the examiner did not observe any verbalization. They do not mention as to whether the family reported random noises or coherent speech.
The third page is from March of 1991. The Monthly summary indicates slight increase in responses, but questions whether the variation is merely due to time of day of testing.
The second page is dated a year later than the first page, June 1991. Under “cognitive/communication” it states “no significant change” but does note vocalizing, and says “occ will say ‘stop’ to nursing during procedures.”
According to the GAL report: July 19, 1991 - “Ms. Schiavo is transferred to Sable Palms skilled care facility where she receives continuing neurological testing, and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994.”
From the partial notes presented, it appears she was given therapy through 1994, with any improvement noted only in the early stages - 1991. I have to say I'd want the complete set of notes to form a good conclusion; sometimes they give a different picture. Observers do vary, and the most accurate picture would be from reading all the notes. Also, if these notes are “cherry picked” (and I couldn’t say one way or the other) they could be very deceptive.
The GAL, who presumably had access to ALL of her medical reports, says: "During the previous four years [1990-1994], he [MS] had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement."
In the face of no improvement for 3 years, (and maybe even deterioration) I'm not surprised that the experts felt further improvement was very unlikely. More therapy was extremely unlikely to have changed anything.
I'm glad that you have been able to find some other things on your own. I haven't had the time to continue looking further.
For me, I guess the sticking point is that Michael told the malpractice jury that he wanted to take care of Terri for the rest of her life, which was estimated to be another 20 years. He never mentioned anything about this supposed desire of Terri's to be free of tubes and such. He professed to believe in his marriage vows, for better or worse. That would be honorable for a man to do so. However, it would be exceedingly deceitful to put on a show for a jury in such a way. It would constitute fraud, IMHO.
That Michael would refuse to take Terri to Shands to get the treatment that was recommended, particularly after convincing the jury of his devotion to Terri, indicates to me that he was not really interested in pursuing the recommended rehab for her condition. Nothing had changed, except that a trust fund was now established. Within 8 months of the trial, Michael issued a DNR order to be placed on Terri's chart. He refused to have Terri treated with antibiotics for a UTI. Did Michael have a personality change? What happened to the guy who said he wanted to take care of Terri for the rest of her life?