Illinois Medical Treatment after Injury, explained completely.

The first 72 hours

The first 72 hours of medical treatment after an Illinois accident shape the entire injury case. Emergency department records, EMS run reports, and initial physician notes from this window become foundational evidence. Defense attorneys and insurance carriers scrutinize early records for anything suggesting injuries were minor, pre-existing, or unrelated to the crash. What the injured party says, does, and seeks treatment for in this window matters for the next two to four years.

Why early treatment matters

• Establishes causation. Same-day or next-day medical treatment connects the injuries to the crash. Delay creates space for the defense to argue something else caused the symptoms.
• Documents baseline symptoms. Early symptom documentation prevents later disputes about whether complaints are real.
• Catches serious conditions. Some injuries (internal bleeding, TBI, spinal injuries) require immediate care. Delay risks worse outcomes.
• Triggers diagnostic imaging. CT scans, X-rays, and MRIs ordered in the emergency department document objective findings.
• Creates the medical narrative. The initial record sets the trajectory of treatment that follows.

Emergency department visits

Any significant Illinois motor vehicle crash should trigger an emergency department evaluation, either by ambulance from the scene or by personal transport shortly after. The emergency department documentation includes:

• Chief complaint recorded at triage
• History of present illness documenting the mechanism of injury
• Review of systems covering symptoms across body systems
• Physical examination findings
• Diagnostic studies ordered (X-rays, CT, labs)
• Assessment and plan including discharge diagnoses
• Discharge instructions including follow-up recommendations

The "I'm fine" trap

Symptoms that develop over hours or days

Many injuries do not produce symptoms immediately. Adrenaline at the scene masks pain. Soft tissue injuries develop swelling and stiffness over 24-72 hours. Concussion symptoms (headache, fatigue, cognitive issues) often emerge hours or days later. Whiplash typically becomes most painful on day 2-3, not day 1. Any injured person should:

• Seek emergency department evaluation initially, even if feeling "okay"
• Return for additional treatment if symptoms develop or worsen
• See a primary care physician or urgent care within a few days
• Document new symptoms as they appear, ideally through medical visits rather than just journal entries
• Be honest with treating physicians about every symptom, no matter how minor

Common findings missed in the ED

• Mild TBI / concussion with normal CT but real cognitive symptoms
• Soft tissue injuries not visible on X-ray
• Disc injuries requiring MRI for diagnosis
• Internal injuries with delayed presentation
• Fractures of small bones sometimes missed on initial imaging
• Nerve injuries requiring EMG/nerve conduction studies

When ED workup is incomplete or symptoms persist, follow-up with primary care, urgent care, or specialists is essential.

Treatment gaps and continuity of care

Treatment gaps, periods when a person with an ongoing injury did not seek medical care, are the single biggest case-value killer in Illinois injury practice. Defense attorneys and insurance carriers exploit gaps relentlessly: "If she was really hurt, why did she go three months without treatment?" Gaps create credibility problems even when the underlying injuries are real and serious.

Why gaps damage cases

Defense arguments built around treatment gaps include:

• "The injuries weren't serious enough to require continuous care."
• "The injuries resolved during the gap and any later complaints are unrelated."
• "Whatever happened during the gap caused the current symptoms, not the crash."
• "The plaintiff is exaggerating or fabricating injuries."
• "Medical bills incurred after the gap were not reasonable or necessary."

Common causes of treatment gaps

• Financial concerns. Patients without health insurance or with high deductibles may delay or skip care.
• Job pressures. Patients fear losing wages or jobs if they take time off for medical appointments.
• Family responsibilities. Childcare, eldercare, and household obligations prevent appointment attendance.
• Transportation barriers. Without a vehicle or with disability limitations, getting to appointments is hard.
• Provider scheduling. Specialists often have 6-12 week wait times.
• Apparent improvement. Patients who feel better skip follow-up only to have symptoms return later.
• Provider changes. Switching doctors, insurance, or location creates inadvertent gaps.
• Pandemic disruptions. COVID-era disruptions to elective care continue to affect some treatment patterns.

How to maintain continuity of care

• Attend every scheduled appointment. If you must reschedule, do so before the missed appointment, not after.
• Communicate with your attorney about treatment plans and any barriers.
• Pursue specialist referrals promptly even when wait times are long.
• Use letters of protection when available (treating providers who accept payment from the eventual settlement rather than upfront).
• Document any gap. If you must miss treatment for a real reason, the medical record should reflect why.
• Return to care promptly after any unavoidable interruption.
• Follow physician recommendations. Recommended physical therapy, follow-ups, and procedures should be completed.

Letters of protection

A letter of protection (LOP) is an arrangement where a medical provider agrees to treat the patient and bill the eventual settlement rather than requiring upfront payment or relying solely on health insurance. LOPs are common in Illinois injury practice and can address financial barriers to treatment. The attorney typically arranges the LOP with cooperating providers. The arrangement is non-recourse to the patient: if there is no recovery, the patient generally does not owe the provider.

LOPs are useful but have tradeoffs:

• They eliminate cost as a barrier to treatment
• They create a lien on the eventual recovery
• Some defense attorneys argue LOP treatment is "litigation-driven" rather than medically necessary
• LOP providers are typically familiar with medical-legal documentation requirements

Specialists and referrals

Beyond emergency department care and primary care follow-up, Illinois injury cases routinely involve specialist evaluation and treatment. Specialist documentation produces stronger evidence than general practitioner records because specialists have specific expertise in the body systems involved. Understanding which specialists are involved in which injury categories helps the injured party navigate the treatment process.

Orthopedic surgeons

Orthopedists evaluate and treat injuries to bones, joints, ligaments, tendons, and muscles. Common referrals in injury cases:

• Fractures (both displaced and non-displaced)
• Ligament tears (ACL, MCL, rotator cuff)
• Tendon injuries
• Joint injuries (knee, shoulder, hip, ankle)
• Spine injuries (in combination with neurosurgery)
• Soft tissue injuries requiring surgical evaluation

Neurologists and neurosurgeons

Neurologists evaluate and treat conditions of the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nervous system. Neurosurgeons perform surgical interventions on the nervous system. Common referrals:

• Traumatic brain injury (TBI) of any severity
• Concussion and post-concussion syndrome
• Cervical (neck) injuries with neurologic symptoms
• Lumbar (low back) injuries with radiculopathy
• Disc herniations affecting nerve roots
• Spinal cord injuries
• Peripheral nerve injuries
• Headaches following head injury

Neuropsychologists

Neuropsychologists conduct cognitive testing to assess brain function. Neuropsychological evaluation is the gold standard for documenting TBI cognitive deficits, particularly in mild TBI cases where imaging may be normal. Testing typically includes:

• Attention and concentration measures
• Memory testing (working memory, short-term, long-term)
• Executive function assessment
• Processing speed measures
• Language function
• Visual-spatial function
• Mood and personality assessment
• Effort and validity testing

Pain management physicians

Pain management specialists (often physiatrists or anesthesiologists with pain management training) treat chronic pain following injuries. Treatments may include:

• Medication management
• Trigger point injections
• Epidural steroid injections
• Facet joint injections
• Nerve blocks
• Radiofrequency ablation
• Spinal cord stimulators (in chronic cases)
• Implantable pain pumps (in severe cases)

Physical therapists

Physical therapists (PTs) provide rehabilitative treatment to restore function, strength, range of motion, and reduce pain. PT records are essential in any soft tissue, fracture, or musculoskeletal injury case. Common modalities:

• Therapeutic exercise
• Manual therapy
• Modalities (heat, ice, ultrasound, electrical stimulation)
• Aquatic therapy
• Functional capacity evaluation

Other specialists by injury type

• Plastic surgeons for facial injuries, scarring, and reconstruction
• Ophthalmologists for eye injuries
• ENT specialists for ear, nose, throat injuries (including TBI-related hearing/balance issues)
• Psychiatrists and psychologists for PTSD, depression, anxiety following injury
• Vocational rehabilitation specialists for return-to-work planning
• Occupational therapists for activities of daily living retraining
• Speech-language pathologists for cognitive-communicative impairment after TBI
• Prosthetists and orthotists for prosthetic and orthotic devices

Imaging studies and objective evidence

Imaging studies produce objective evidence of injury that is difficult for defense to dispute. Each imaging modality has specific uses, strengths, and limitations. Understanding when each is appropriate helps the injured party advocate for the correct testing.

When imaging is not done

Insurance carriers often dispute injuries when imaging is normal or absent. Common scenarios:

• Soft tissue injuries with normal X-ray. X-rays do not show soft tissue. MRI is needed to document disc herniation, ligament tears, or muscle injury.
• Concussion with normal CT. Standard CT does not show mild TBI. Neuropsychological testing is the appropriate diagnostic tool.
• Pain without findings. Some real pain conditions (myofascial pain, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome) do not show on standard imaging.

The absence of imaging findings does not mean the absence of injury. Treating physicians who diagnose based on examination and clinical history can document real injuries that imaging alone misses.

Repeat imaging

In some injuries, repeat imaging over time documents healing, persistent damage, or progressive conditions. Repeat MRI for disc injuries, repeat X-ray for fracture healing, and serial neuropsychological testing for TBI recovery all produce longitudinal documentation that strengthens cases.

Subjective symptoms

Many real and significant injuries produce primarily subjective symptoms, complaints that the patient experiences but that cannot be directly measured by imaging or laboratory tests. Pain, dizziness, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, mood changes, sleep disturbances, and post-traumatic stress all fall into the subjective category. Defense attorneys routinely attack subjective complaints as exaggerated or fabricated. Proper documentation defeats those attacks.

Common subjective symptoms in injury cases

• Pain in all locations and characters (sharp, dull, burning, throbbing)
• Headaches following head impact or whiplash
• Dizziness and balance problems
• Fatigue and reduced stamina
• Cognitive symptoms (memory, concentration, word-finding, processing speed)
• Mood changes (depression, anxiety, irritability)
• Sleep disturbances (insomnia, fragmented sleep, nightmares)
• Sensory changes (light sensitivity, sound sensitivity, taste changes)
• Sexual dysfunction
• Loss of stamina for previously easy activities

Why subjective symptoms matter

Subjective symptoms are often the most life-altering consequences of an injury. A person with a "minor" concussion that produces persistent headaches, cognitive difficulties, and mood changes may be unable to work in their previous occupation, unable to enjoy hobbies, and unable to maintain relationships. The subjective symptoms drive the loss-of-normal-life damages that often exceed economic damages in serious cases.

Documenting subjective symptoms

Effective documentation of subjective symptoms requires:

• Consistent reporting to treating physicians. Every appointment should include current symptom status, even if the symptoms have not changed.
• Specific descriptions. "Headache 7/10, throbbing, behind right eye, triggered by screen use, lasting 4-6 hours, occurring daily" is more useful than "headache."
• Quantification. Pain scales (0-10), frequency (daily, weekly), duration (hours, days), and impact on activities.
• Functional impact. What the symptoms prevent or limit: cannot work full days, cannot exercise, cannot sleep through the night, cannot care for children.
• Triggers and patterns. What makes symptoms worse (activity, screen time, weather, stress) and any patterns over time.
• Treatment response. What helps (medication, physical therapy, rest) and what does not.

Validity and credibility

Defense scrutiny of subjective complaints means credibility matters enormously. Factors that support credibility:

• Consistency across multiple providers and over time
• Symptoms make biomechanical sense for the injuries documented
• Failure to report symptoms that are easy to fake while reporting symptoms that are harder to fake
• Symptoms align with imaging findings where imaging exists
• Patient is not making demands for narcotics or disability paperwork
• Patient is engaged in treatment rather than passively suffering
• Validity testing on neuropsychological evaluations indicates good effort

Lay witness testimony as corroboration

Family members, coworkers, and friends can provide powerful testimony about pre-accident and post-accident functioning. The spouse who watched the plaintiff struggle to remember a grocery list, the coworker who saw the plaintiff need to leave work because of headaches, the friend who watched the plaintiff give up activities they previously loved, all corroborate subjective complaints in ways that medical records cannot. In significant cases, lay witness testimony is essential to establishing the full scope of loss.

Pre-existing conditions and the eggshell rule

Defense attorneys routinely argue that the plaintiff's current symptoms are caused by pre-existing conditions rather than the crash. The argument is often overstated, but pre-existing conditions are real considerations in many injury cases. Illinois follows the "eggshell plaintiff" rule, which protects plaintiffs in important ways, but the application of the rule requires careful analysis.

The eggshell plaintiff rule

Under Illinois law, a tortfeasor must take the plaintiff as they find them. If the plaintiff has a pre-existing condition that made them more susceptible to injury, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the injuries caused by the crash, even if the same crash would have caused less injury to a healthier plaintiff. This is the eggshell plaintiff rule (sometimes called the eggshell skull rule, or "thin skull" rule).

Classic example: a plaintiff with degenerative disc disease that was previously asymptomatic suffers a herniated disc and severe pain after a car crash. The defendant cannot argue that a healthier plaintiff would have been less injured. The defendant is liable for the actual injuries to this plaintiff.

The aggravation distinction

A related but distinct concept is the aggravation of a pre-existing condition. When a pre-existing condition was already symptomatic before the crash, the defendant is liable for the aggravation, the additional symptoms or worsening, not for the pre-existing baseline.

Example: a plaintiff with chronic back pain rated at 3/10 before the crash, who has 8/10 pain after the crash, can recover for the increase from 3/10 to 8/10, not for the baseline 3/10 pain that existed before. Documenting the baseline is essential to establishing the increase.

Common pre-existing condition disputes

• Degenerative disc disease. Common in adults; defense argues current pain is from degeneration, not the crash.
• Prior back or neck injuries. Documented prior treatment creates argument that current symptoms are continuation, not new injury.
• Arthritis. Pre-existing arthritis may be argued as the source of joint pain.
• Prior concussions. Cumulative effects of repeat concussions become defense argument.
• Depression and anxiety. Pre-existing mental health conditions are argued as source of current emotional symptoms.
• Prior motor vehicle accidents. Documented prior crashes create exposure for "which crash caused the injury" disputes.
• Workers' compensation claims. Prior workers' comp injuries are routinely raised in defense.

Establishing causation despite pre-existing conditions

When pre-existing conditions are at issue, establishing causation requires:

• Pre-accident medical records documenting the baseline level of symptoms (or absence of symptoms)
• Treating physician opinion on causation, distinguishing the pre-existing condition from the new injury or aggravation
• Plaintiff testimony about pre-accident functioning compared to post-accident
• Lay witness testimony from family, coworkers, friends about pre-accident functioning
• Pre-accident activities documentation (employment records, social media from before the crash showing activities now impossible)
• Specific timing of new symptoms aligned with the crash rather than the pre-existing condition

The trap of denying pre-existing conditions

A common mistake in injury cases is to deny pre-existing conditions at deposition or trial when records show them. Denying documented prior treatment destroys credibility and supports defense arguments that the plaintiff is hiding relevant information. The better approach is honesty: acknowledge the pre-existing condition, document the prior baseline, and emphasize how the current symptoms differ.

Maximum Medical Improvement

Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) is the point at which a patient's condition has stabilized and further significant improvement is not expected with continued treatment. MMI is a critical concept in injury cases because it determines when damages can be reliably calculated and when settlement makes sense.

What MMI means

A patient at MMI has:

• Completed acute treatment
• Completed reasonable rehabilitation
• Reached a plateau in recovery
• Achieved permanent residual condition (full recovery, partial recovery, or no further recovery)
• Identifiable future medical needs that can be projected

MMI does not mean the patient is "back to normal" or that no further treatment will ever be needed. Some patients reach MMI with permanent disability, ongoing pain, or lifetime medical needs. MMI simply means the condition has stabilized to a predictable trajectory.

Why MMI matters for settlement

Settling before MMI carries significant risk:

• Injuries may turn out to be worse than initially apparent
• Treatment costs may exceed initial estimates
• Permanent residual conditions may not yet be apparent
• Future medical needs may not yet be quantifiable
• The release signed at settlement is irrevocable, so additional damages discovered later cannot be recovered

Insurance carriers often pressure settlement before MMI specifically because they know early settlement undervalues the case. Waiting for MMI, even when it means waiting 12-24 months or longer, typically produces better outcomes.

Timeline to MMI

MMI timelines vary by injury:

• Soft tissue injuries: typically 6-12 months
• Simple fractures: 6-12 months
• Complex fractures requiring surgery: 12-24 months
• Spine injuries with surgery: 12-24 months or longer
• Mild TBI / concussion: 6-18 months (most resolve, some persist)
• Moderate TBI: 12-24 months
• Severe TBI: 18-36+ months
• Catastrophic injuries: 24-48+ months

Documenting MMI

MMI is typically documented by the treating physician through a written opinion stating that the patient has reached maximum medical improvement, identifying any permanent residual conditions, and projecting future medical needs. In some cases, an independent medical evaluator may also opine on MMI.

The MMI documentation often becomes the foundation for the life care plan in catastrophic cases and for the damages presentation in all serious cases. A thorough MMI assessment is the bridge from medical treatment to legal claim valuation.

Medical liens in Illinois

When medical providers treat an injured person whose care is related to a third-party injury claim, the providers have rights to recover their charges from the eventual settlement. These rights take the form of medical liens against the recovery. The Illinois Health Care Services Lien Act (770 ILCS 23/) governs hospital and medical provider liens in Illinois.

The Illinois Health Care Services Lien Act

Under 770 ILCS 23/, hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers have lien rights for treatment provided to injured persons. Key features of the Act:

• Lien attaches to the recovery from a third party for the injuries treated
• Notice requirements must be met to establish a valid lien
• Total lien amounts are capped at a percentage of the verdict, judgment, or settlement (the cap percentage has changed over the years; current law must be checked)
• Priority rules govern competing liens when multiple providers claim against the same recovery
• Reduction provisions apply when the cap is exceeded by total lien claims

Hospital liens

Hospital liens are typically the largest single medical lien in injury cases. Major Chicagoland hospitals (Northwestern, Rush, University of Chicago, Loyola, Advocate, NorthShore) all routinely file hospital liens on injury cases. The lien attaches once notice is given and persists until paid or released.

Physician and clinic liens

Individual physicians, group practices, and outpatient clinics can also file liens under the Act. Specialist providers (orthopedists, neurologists, pain management) may file separate liens. The total of all liens is subject to the statutory cap.

Health insurance subrogation

When health insurance has paid for medical treatment, the insurer typically has subrogation rights against the recovery. These rights are different from hospital liens but operate in a similar way to reduce the net recovery to the plaintiff. Subrogation rights are governed by:

• The policy contract between the insured and the carrier
• Illinois common fund doctrine which can reduce the subrogation
• ERISA for self-funded employer health plans
• Statutory provisions for Medicare and Medicaid

Lien negotiation

Lien resolution is a substantial part of finalizing any Illinois injury settlement. Successful negotiation can reduce lien amounts substantially:

• Hospital liens are routinely negotiated to 30-50% of the face amount, particularly when the lien represents inflated "chargemaster" rates rather than actual charges
• Health insurance subrogation can be reduced under common fund doctrine
• Medicare conditional payments can be reduced through the Medicare appeal process
• ERISA subrogation is harder to reduce but sometimes possible
• Statutory cap application when total liens exceed the Act's percentage cap

The plaintiff's interest in lien resolution

Every dollar reduced from a lien goes directly to the plaintiff's net recovery. In serious cases with substantial medical bills, skilled lien negotiation can increase the net recovery by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Attorneys who treat lien negotiation as a perfunctory paperwork exercise rather than an aggressive advocacy task leave money on the table.

HIPAA authorizations and IMEs

Two areas of medical-legal practice routinely produce confusion and conflict: HIPAA authorizations that allow defense access to medical records, and Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) conducted by physicians selected by the defense.

HIPAA authorizations

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) generally protects medical records from disclosure. In personal injury litigation, however, the plaintiff puts their medical condition at issue and must authorize the defense to obtain relevant records. This is accomplished through HIPAA-compliant authorizations.

What HIPAA authorizations cover

A HIPAA authorization in an injury case typically authorizes disclosure of:

• Medical records related to the injuries at issue
• Records from specific providers identified in the authorization
• Records for a defined time period
• Specific types of records (treatment notes, imaging, lab results)

Plaintiffs should carefully review HIPAA authorizations before signing. Issues to watch for:

• Scope. Defense often requests authorizations broader than necessary; narrow scope to relevant providers and time periods.
• Sensitive records. Mental health, substance abuse, and HIV records have additional protections beyond ordinary HIPAA.
• Duration. Authorizations have expiration dates; old authorizations may not authorize new disclosures.
• Revocation rights. Plaintiffs can revoke authorizations in some circumstances, though disclosures already made are not reversed.

Defense access to records

In Illinois litigation, the defense will obtain:

• All records related to the injuries claimed
• Pre-accident records for the affected body systems
• Records of any prior injuries or relevant conditions
• Mental health records when emotional damages are claimed
• Records of substance use or addiction when impairment is at issue

Hiding records is impossible because defense obtains records directly through subpoenas and HIPAA authorizations, not from the plaintiff. The best approach is full disclosure to your own attorney early so the attorney can prepare for the defense's use of any unfavorable records.

Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs)

In Illinois litigation, the defense has the right under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 215 to require the plaintiff to submit to an Independent Medical Examination (IME) by a physician of the defense's choosing. The term "independent" is somewhat misleading: IME physicians are typically selected because they routinely produce defense-favorable opinions. The examinations are not truly neutral.

How IMEs work

The IME process:

1. The defense requests an IME, typically after the plaintiff's medical condition has been documented through treating providers
2. The plaintiff's attorney negotiates the scope, timing, and specific examiner
3. The plaintiff attends the examination at the IME physician's office
4. The IME physician examines the plaintiff and reviews medical records
5. The IME physician produces a report containing opinions about diagnosis, causation, prognosis, and any defense-favorable findings
6. The report becomes evidence in the case, and the IME physician may testify at trial

Preparing for an IME

• Be honest with the IME physician. Do not exaggerate symptoms or minimize prior conditions. Honest descriptions are harder to attack.
• Describe symptoms accurately using the same language used with treating physicians.
• Do not volunteer information beyond what is asked. Answer questions; do not freelance.
• Do not argue with the IME physician about diagnosis or opinions; the IME is not a treatment visit.
• Take a witness when allowed, often a paralegal or family member.
• Take detailed notes after the examination about what was asked, how long the examination lasted, and what testing was performed.

Cross-examination of IME physicians

At trial, IME physicians face cross-examination on their financial relationships with defense interests, the percentage of their practice that involves IMEs, their typical conclusions, and the brevity of their examinations relative to treating physician evaluations. Effective cross-examination of an IME physician can substantially undermine the report's credibility.

Social media and surveillance risk

Insurance carriers and defense attorneys actively monitor plaintiff social media and conduct surveillance to find evidence that contradicts injury claims. A single photo, video, or post that appears inconsistent with claimed injuries can substantially damage or destroy a case. Understanding what defense looks for and how to protect against it is essential.

What defense monitors

• Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, TikTok, LinkedIn, Snapchat and other social platforms
• Public posts visible to anyone
• "Friends only" posts sometimes accessible through investigation
• Tagged photos by friends and family even when the plaintiff did not post them
• Activity check-ins at restaurants, gyms, sporting events
• Reviews on Yelp, Google, TripAdvisor
• Dating profiles on apps like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge
• Athletic apps like Strava that publish exercise activity
• YouTube and video content
• Comments on others' posts

What defense looks for

• Photos or videos of physical activities that appear inconsistent with claimed limitations
• Travel, particularly to vacation destinations
• Sports and recreation
• Working out, exercise, or athletic events
• Lifting, carrying, or physical labor
• Dancing, partying, or active socializing
• Posts contradicting symptoms (claiming chronic pain while posting about a great day with no limitations)
• Inconsistencies with deposition testimony
• Returning to work or activities sooner than reported

Surveillance

Beyond social media, insurance carriers retain investigators to conduct physical surveillance of plaintiffs:

• Following the plaintiff and recording activities
• Videotaping outside the plaintiff's home, gym, workplace
• Documenting yard work, shopping, recreational activities
• Filming the plaintiff entering and leaving medical appointments

Surveillance is more common in significant cases. The investigation may run for days, weeks, or months. Plaintiffs typically have no idea they are being filmed.

Protective measures

• Set all social media to private and limit who can see posts
• Do not accept friend requests from strangers during litigation
• Ask family and friends not to tag you in photos or posts
• Avoid posting photos of physical activities, travel, or recreation
• Avoid making statements about your condition that could be taken out of context
• Tell your attorney about anything that might be on social media
• Do not delete posts once a claim is filed, deletion may constitute spoliation
• Assume you are being watched in public spaces and act accordingly
• Be consistent in your activity levels regardless of who is watching

When activities are legitimate

Plaintiffs do not need to live as if confined to bed to maintain their case. Real recovery includes returning to activities as tolerated. The key principles:

• Be honest about activity levels with treating physicians and at deposition
• Activities consistent with the medical record are not problematic (if your doctor cleared you for light exercise, light exercise is fine)
• The problem is inconsistency, claiming inability to do something while obviously doing it
• Document any activity limitations that occur even during outward activities (the marathon that triggered three days of bedrest, for example)

Frequently asked questions

Quick-answer references to the most-asked questions about medical treatment after Illinois accidents.

Related references

Continue your research with these related pillar references on the Chicago Accident Encyclopedia.