Most online tools work like rough “math models.” They may ask about things like days in the hospital, diagnostic tests, or time missed from work. That can be useful for planning—but it’s not how insurance adjusters or courts decide outcomes.
In a Claremont case, the most persuasive value questions usually look like this:
- Was the injury documented early and consistently? (Initial symptoms right after the incident vs. later recollections.)
- Do medical notes connect symptoms to the mechanism of injury? (How the head trauma occurred.)
- Is there proof of functional impact? (Not just that symptoms exist—how they affected school, work, driving, parenting, or daily tasks.)
A calculator can’t measure credibility, track gaps in treatment, or predict how a defense attorney will challenge causation. That’s why it should be treated as a starting point—not a verdict.


