There is a perception within parts of the personal injury sector that experts now give longer prognoses more frequently. However, the available public evidence does not currently establish a general trend towards progressively longer prognosis periods. In fact, evidence submitted during the government’s 2024 review of the whiplash tariff raised a different concern: some respondents felt that prognosis periods had become increasingly standardised.
What Does the Available Evidence Show?
As part of the statutory review of the whiplash tariff, the Ministry of Justice asked stakeholders whether the existing injury-duration bands reflected the typical duration of whiplash injuries.
Most respondents considered the existing ranges broadly representative. Respondents from several sectors stated that most whiplash prognoses fell within nine months. More significantly, a medical-sector response suggested that the range of professional opinion had reduced, with many experts giving claimants a six-month prognosis. The review also recorded the view that only a small proportion of injuries continued beyond the longest tariff period.
This does not provide evidence that experts give longer prognoses than they did several years ago. It instead raises questions about whether certain prognosis periods have become habitual.
Experts should therefore be cautious about assuming that a six-, nine- or twelve-month period represents the expected recovery simply because they commonly see that timeframe in other reports.
Why Prognosis Attracts Greater Attention.
The whiplash tariff makes prognosis particularly important because compensation depends on how long the expert expects the whiplash injury to last.
For accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2025, the tariff continues to use bands ranging from injuries lasting no more than three months through to injuries lasting between 18 and 24 months. The government increased the monetary values in 2025 but retained the duration-band structure.
This means that a relatively small difference in prognosis can move a claimant into another compensation band.
Experts must not allow that consequence to influence their medical judgment. They should determine prognosis from the claimant’s presentation, progress, examination findings, treatment and relevant history rather than from the financial effect of selecting a particular duration.
Later Examinations May Produce Better-Informed Prognoses.
Recent MedCo guidance on examination timing may also influence how experts approach prognosis.
In April 2026, MedCo clarified that experts do not have to wait six weeks before examining a claimant. However, its Medical Advisory Board indicated that examinations within four weeks will be too early in most cases and that assessments at six weeks or later will usually provide a stronger basis for prognosis.
This could change the way prognosis appears in reports.
An expert examining a claimant two weeks after an accident has little information about the recovery pattern. By six or eight weeks, the expert can see whether symptoms are improving, remaining stable or becoming more problematic.
A later examination does not necessarily produce a longer prognosis. It may allow the expert to give a shorter and more accurate remaining recovery period because some recovery has already occurred.
The important change is therefore likely to involve greater confidence in prognosis, rather than automatically longer prognosis periods.
Persistent Symptoms Require Individual Assessment.
Some claimants do take longer than expected to recover from minor injuries. Previous symptoms, delayed rehabilitation, physical deconditioning, continuing pain, psychological responses and unrelated medical conditions may all affect the clinical picture.
However, the presence of ongoing symptoms at the date of examination does not automatically justify a long prognosis.
The expert should consider whether the claimant is improving and whether the continuing symptoms remain consistent with the original injury. If recovery has already started, a relatively short remaining prognosis may be appropriate. If symptoms remain severe without the expected improvement, the expert may need to reconsider the diagnosis, treatment needs or possible contributing factors.
The prognosis should therefore reflect the individual claimant rather than a predetermined recovery period.
Psychological Symptoms May Complicate Recovery.
Minor psychological symptoms can also influence the overall presentation following a road traffic accident.
The current Ministry of Justice guidance recognises minor psychological injury alongside whiplash within the tariff, provided the psychological symptoms remain secondary to the physical whiplash injury and do not amount to a specific phobia or another diagnosable psychological disorder.
Travel anxiety, disturbed sleep or apprehension about driving may improve at a different rate from physical symptoms. However, the whiplash tariff remains based on the duration of the whiplash injury rather than simply extending the prognosis because psychological symptoms also exist.
Experts should therefore assess the different symptoms separately and explain their expected course clearly.
Avoiding the Template Prognosis.
One of the greater risks in modern medico-legal reporting is not necessarily that prognoses are becoming longer, but that they are becoming formulaic.
A reporting system may suggest a standard recovery period, or an expert may become accustomed to using the same prognosis for a particular injury. Neither provides a sufficient clinical basis for the opinion.
MedCo has recently highlighted wider concerns about report quality and software-driven inaccuracies, stressing that experts must check their reports thoroughly before signing them.
The same principle applies to prognosis. Software can calculate dates, but it cannot determine how long an individual claimant is likely to experience symptoms. The expert must make that judgment.
If six months is appropriate, the report should explain why. If three months is sufficient, the expert should not extend it simply because six months is commonly used.
What Happens When Recovery Exceeds the Original Prognosis?
Even a carefully reasoned prognosis remains a prediction rather than a guarantee.
A claimant may continue to experience symptoms after the original recovery period has expired. The personal injury protocols recognise that further medical evidence may sometimes become necessary, including where the claimant has not recovered as expected or where the initial expert cannot yet provide a final prognosis.
An inaccurate outcome does not necessarily mean that the original expert made an error. Recovery can change because of subsequent treatment, complications, unrelated illness or factors that were not apparent during the first assessment.
However, where an expert regularly gives prognoses that prove substantially shorter or longer than actual recovery, reviewing their approach would be sensible.
The Direction of Medico-Legal Reporting.
Current evidence does not justify a simple conclusion that longer prognoses are becoming more common.
The stronger trend appears to be towards greater scrutiny of how experts reach prognosis and whether their conclusions genuinely reflect the individual claimant. The 2024 government review even recorded concern that many whiplash reports had converged around a six-month prognosis rather than showing a broad range of individual clinical judgments.
MedCo’s newer guidance on examination timing may help experts make better-informed predictions by allowing enough recovery time to establish a meaningful clinical pattern.
The objective should not be a shorter or longer prognosis. It should be an accurate, individual and clinically defensible prognosis.
Experts should resist both extremes: extending recovery periods without evidence and selecting unrealistically short periods simply because the original injury appeared minor. A strong prognosis explains what the expert expects to happen, why they expect it and what evidence supports that conclusion.
