An MRI is a very useful tool in the evaluation and treatment process, but it is only one tool. An MRI is an imaging study to evaluate joints, bones and soft tissue, including nerves, disks, and the spinal areas. An MRI can show if there is any pathology such as fractures, herniated disks, bulging discs, nerve compression and stenosis.
However, an MRI doesn't always reveal the source of the pain. An MRI result can also be misleading and in the hands of a claims adjuster or defense attorney, intentionally misleading. I recently tried in a case in the Henry County State Court where the defense called an expert witness who testified that "the MRI failed to reveal any acute injury" such as the one my client complained about and therefore concluded that my client must be complaining about some pre-existing condition.
On cross examination I got the defense expert to admit the following:
- An MRI can show an acute injury through evidence of edema or a hemorrhage.
- The body would absorb the edema or hemorrhage within two to four weeks and therefore would not be revealed in a later MRI.
- The MRI in question was taken seven months after collision in question. Thus the good doctor's testimony was totally irrelevant and the jury, fortunately discarded that testimony all together.
If your MRI does not show an acute injury, but you did suffer an acute history, make sure you get your doctor to explain why that is and how you can verify the injury. There are other diagnostic tests, including physical exams, nerve conduction studies and X-Rays. This is not an exhaustive list, there are others as well. Often a physician will rely heavily on a patient's history. If litigation is involved, it is important to verify this history with fact witnesses who can testify that you weren't complaining of pain in a specific area prior to the accident, but you do now. Also, fact witnesses can explain changes in behavior that further validate the history. One fact to remember, a doctor treats his/her patient, not an MRI.