Most AI tools estimate settlement value by comparing your inputs (injury type, treatment timeline, wage loss, and limitations) to generalized outcomes. That can be useful as a rough reality check—especially if you want to understand what categories tend to be considered.
In Cocoa, however, the calculator often misses the details that move a case one way or another:
- Return-to-work and restriction documentation: Insurers often focus on what your doctor said you could do—not just what you felt.
- Wage structure: If your pay included variable hours, incentives, shift differentials, or overtime patterns, an AI estimate may not reflect how earnings were actually calculated.
- Timeline gaps: For workers who reported symptoms after a long shift, delayed a follow-up, or changed job duties, consistency matters.
- Dispute posture: If the insurer is already questioning causation or maximum medical improvement, a “generic” estimate may be far too optimistic or too low.
A calculator can’t review the specific medical findings, the treating provider’s impairment opinions, or the credibility issues that frequently arise in Florida claims.


