AI-based tools usually work by taking inputs—symptoms, treatment dates, and injury severity—and then producing a rough range. The problem is that brain injury claims aren’t assessed like a simple math problem. Adjusters often focus on:
- Whether the first medical visit happened promptly after the crash or fall
- Whether follow-up care continued consistently (or why it didn’t)
- Whether objective findings (imaging, neuro evaluations, specialist notes) align with reported cognitive symptoms
- Whether symptoms affected real-world functioning, such as returning to work, commuting, driving, or basic routines
In South Holland, many incidents involve drivers and pedestrians navigating intersections, traffic backups, and road work. When the timeline isn’t clean—or when symptoms are documented late—defense teams may argue that the symptoms are unrelated, preexisting, or overstated.
An AI output can’t verify that nuance. A lawyer can.


