The Discover Life Clinical Brief Series was developed to help personal injury attorneys better understand difficult spine injury cases. Each publication answers one practical question commonly encountered when injuries do not follow the expected course of recovery. Each Clinical Brief is designed to be read in approximately five minutes.
A 42-year-old office manager is involved in a rear-end motor vehicle collision. She completes eight months of chiropractic care, physical therapy, massage therapy, and follows her prescribed home rehabilitation program. Although she has improved, she continues to experience daily neck pain, headaches, and difficulty working at a computer for extended periods. Her MRI demonstrates mild degenerative changes, and surgery is not indicated. Settlement discussions begin, but one question remains: Has every important diagnostic question been answered?
Most personal injury cases improve with conservative treatment. Some do not. When symptoms persist beyond the expected healing period, the first question should not be ‘What additional treatment should be provided?’ Instead, it should be ‘Does the current diagnosis fully explain the patient’s condition?’
Key Points:
• Persistent symptoms should prompt diagnostic reconsideration.
• A diagnosis should continue to explain the patient’s condition.
• Objective clinical information strengthens difficult cases.
• Better diagnostic questions often lead to better treatment decisions.
One of the most challenging situations in personal injury practice occurs when a patient has received appropriate treatment yet continues to experience significant symptoms. Attorneys frequently encounter cases in which providers agree the patient has improved, but not enough to return to normal function.
Early after a collision, diagnoses such as cervical strain or lumbar sprain are appropriate because they describe the injured tissues based on the information available at the time. Months later, however, physicians have considerably more information, including the patient’s response to treatment, updated examination findings, imaging studies, and the overall recovery pattern.
If those findings no longer fit the original diagnosis, physicians should consider whether additional diagnostic clarification is appropriate. Persistent symptoms do not automatically mean the original diagnosis is incorrect, but they do suggest it deserves to be re-evaluated. The purpose is not to prolong care or generate unnecessary testing. It is to determine whether another explanation better accounts for the patient’s ongoing symptoms.
In many difficult spine injury cases, asking one additional diagnostic question becomes the turning point that guides future treatment recommendations and strengthens the medical record.
Attorneys are not expected to diagnose injuries. They are expected to recognize when the medical record raises unanswered questions. Before concluding that a patient has simply reached maximum improvement, consider asking whether the current diagnosis still explains the patient’s condition.
When recovery no longer follows the expected course, reconsidering the diagnosis is often more valuable than simply continuing the same treatment.
A diagnosis should evolve as the patient’s clinical picture evolves.
Over more than 35 years of practice, I have found that many difficult post-traumatic spine injury cases were challenging not because treatment failed, but because an important diagnostic question had never been asked. Before recommending more treatment, I believe it is essential to determine whether the current diagnosis still explains the patient’s symptoms.
Has the patient’s recovery reached a plateau because treatment has failed—or because the diagnosis deserves another look?
Please contact us by filling out this short form and we’ll contact you shortly.
