MedCo does not require experts to wait six weeks before carrying out an examination, and the law does not impose a minimum period between the accident and the medical assessment. Instead, the guidance asks experts to consider whether enough time has passed for them to provide a reliable clinical opinion, particularly on prognosis.
Why the Timing of an Examination Matters.
The timing of a medico-legal assessment can directly affect the quality of the expert’s opinion.
During the first few weeks following an accident, symptoms may change rapidly. A claimant may experience significant pain shortly after the incident but improve substantially over the following weeks. Another claimant may initially appear to recover before symptoms persist or become more complicated.
Experts may therefore find it difficult to provide an accurate prognosis at an early stage.
MedCo’s Medical Advisory Board has identified examinations taking place within four weeks of an accident and considers this too early in most cases. The Board’s main concern is that the claimant may not yet have established a clear recovery pattern, making an accurate prognosis more difficult.
This does not mean that experts should automatically refuse to examine a claimant during the first four weeks. Instead, they should consider whether the individual circumstances provide a reasonable clinical justification for an early assessment.
Six Weeks Is Guidance, Not a Rule.
One of the most important points in MedCo’s April 2026 clarification is the difference between an expected timeframe and a mandatory requirement.
The Medical Advisory Board states that, in most cases, it expects experts to examine claimants six or more weeks after the accident because this provides a stronger basis for prognosis. However, MedCo makes clear that this remains guidance rather than a fixed restriction.
Experts should therefore avoid applying a rigid six-week rule to every claimant.
Clinical circumstances differ. Some claimants may recover completely before six weeks, allowing the expert to assess them earlier. An earlier examination may also be appropriate where the claimant requires treatment that they cannot otherwise access.
The expert should consider the circumstances of the individual case and be able to explain why the timing of the examination was appropriate rather than relying solely on an administrative timetable.
The Particular Difficulty With Examinations Before Four Weeks.
MedCo expresses its strongest concern about examinations that take place within the first four weeks following an accident.
At this stage, the expert may have limited information about the claimant’s recovery. Symptoms may still form part of the normal acute phase of the injury, treatment may not yet have started, and the claimant may not have had enough time to demonstrate a clear recovery pattern.
This creates difficulty when the expert needs to predict how long the symptoms will continue.
An early examination may still allow the expert to establish the accident history, identify the reported injuries and assess current symptoms. However, the expert may need to express greater uncertainty about prognosis.
MedCo therefore encourages experts to consider whether sufficient time has passed for them to reach a properly informed opinion rather than simply accepting the earliest available appointment.
What About Claimants Who Have Already Recovered?
An early examination may be entirely appropriate when the claimant has already fully recovered.
In these circumstances, the expert does not need to predict an uncertain future recovery period. Instead, they can assess the documented duration of symptoms and consider whether the claimant’s account remains consistent with the reported injury.
MedCo specifically recognises full recovery as a circumstance in which an examination within four weeks may be appropriate.
This illustrates why MedCo has not imposed a rigid minimum waiting period. If a claimant recovered fully after three weeks, requiring them to wait a further three weeks would serve little clinical purpose.
Access to Treatment Can Also Justify an Earlier Assessment.
A claimant’s need for treatment may also justify an earlier examination.
Waiting several additional weeks simply to establish a clearer prognosis may prove counterproductive where an earlier assessment could identify a treatment need and help the claimant access appropriate rehabilitation.
MedCo therefore recognises lack of access to necessary treatment as another circumstance in which an expert may examine a claimant within four weeks.
The expert should still explain the limitations of any prognosis given at that stage. They may confidently recommend treatment while remaining less certain about the eventual duration of the symptoms.
Represented and Unrepresented Claimants.
MedCo’s clarification also distinguishes between represented and unrepresented claimants.
Where a solicitor represents the claimant, the solicitor will usually work with their client to determine when the appointment should take place. MedCo does not place responsibility for appointment scheduling entirely on the medical expert.
Experts may need to take a more active role when an unrepresented claimant requests an early examination.
MedCo encourages experts in these circumstances to speak directly with the claimant and establish why they want an early appointment. If the claimant remains symptomatic but does not have an unmet treatment need, the expert may explain that waiting approximately four to six weeks could provide a stronger basis for assessing prognosis.
The expert should treat this as professional guidance rather than an automatic reason to refuse the examination.
Clinical Judgment Remains Essential.
MedCo’s clarification reinforces a broader principle in medico-legal reporting: experts should use professional judgment rather than allow administrative convenience to determine the timing of an assessment.
Experts should consider whether the timing of the appointment gives them enough evidence to answer the questions raised in the instruction.
If the examination takes place particularly early, the expert should acknowledge that the claimant remains within an evolving recovery period and that this may limit the certainty of the prognosis.
Experts should not create an artificial impression of certainty simply because the report requires a prognosis.
Where appropriate, they should explain that recovery continues to develop and that the prognosis reflects the evidence available at the date of examination.
MedCo’s existing examination guidelines follow the same principle. They emphasise the need for fit-for-purpose medical reports and make clear that numerical figures operate as guidelines rather than targets. For example, MedCo recommends that experts spend at least 15 minutes face to face with each claimant and conduct no more than thirty-five examinations in one day. However, experts may spend longer where necessary, and they should not treat thirty-five examinations as a daily target.
Experts should apply the same reasoning when deciding how soon after an accident to examine a claimant. The quality of the assessment should guide the decision, not a fixed number alone.
What Experts Should Take From the Clarification.
The central message is clear: experts should not treat six weeks as a mandatory waiting period.
MedCo takes a more flexible approach. It considers examinations within four weeks too early in most cases because experts may struggle to determine prognosis reliably at that stage. An examination at around six weeks or later will often provide a stronger clinical basis for prognosis, but experts may still examine claimants earlier where the circumstances justify it.
MedCo’s own data indicates that fewer than 5% of examinations currently take place before four weeks, suggesting that early assessments already remain uncommon.
For medical experts, the clarification does not introduce another fixed rule. Instead, it places greater emphasis on making a clinically defensible decision about when to assess the claimant.
Experts should consider whether the claimant has already recovered, whether they urgently require treatment and whether enough time has passed to assess the course of their symptoms. Where the expert carries out an unusually early examination, they should clearly acknowledge any limitations in the prognosis.
MedCo’s clarification therefore gives experts greater flexibility than a strict six-week rule would allow while placing greater responsibility on their professional judgment. The key question is not simply, “How many weeks have passed since the accident?” It is, “Do I now have enough information to provide a reliable and properly reasoned medical opinion?”
