Many calculators use generic assumptions: broad injury categories, estimated medical bills, or simplified timelines. Those tools can be helpful for planning, but they can’t see the details that control results—especially when the case involves:
- Clinic-to-hospital handoffs (missed results, unclear escalation, delayed referral)
- Short appointment windows common in busy urban practices
- Follow-up and documentation gaps that can change what insurers argue was “known” at the time
- Work and commuting impacts (missed shifts, reduced ability to perform job duties, transportation burden for ongoing care)
In other words, the “range” from a calculator may ignore the specific evidence insurers fight over. In Michigan, that evidence-driven dispute is often what decides whether negotiations move quickly or stall.


