One influential hypothesis posits that the brain regions implicated in Broca's aphasia are responsible for specific syntactic operations that are necessary for the comprehension and production of sentences (Grodzinsky, 1986, 1990, in press). The empirical basis of this hypothesis is the claim that Broca's aphasics have no difficulty understanding sentences in the active voice (and other "canonical" sentence types, such as subject relatives and clefts with negative predicates), but perform at chance level with passive voice constructions (and other "noncanonical" sentences such as object-gap relatives and object clefts). In the face of well-established results indicating that Broca's aphasics can exhibit several different performance patterns on these sentence types, Grodzinsky, Piñango, Zurif, and Drai (1999) argued that these conflicting results do not challenge the theory when the data are analyzed appropriately. They carried out a creative statistical analysis of the comprehension performance of published cases of Broca's aphasia and concluded that all of these cases are in agreement with the predicted pattern: chance on passives and 100% correct on actives. Here we show that the statistical reasoning adopted by Grodzinsky et al. (1999) is flawed. We also show that the comprehension performance of a substantial number of the Broca's aphasics in their own sample does not conform to the pattern required. Rather, contrary to these authors' claim, Broca's aphasia is not associated with a consistent pattern of sentence comprehension performance, but allows for a number of distinct patterns in different patients.