Oftentimes, reviewers of medical records note distortions between immediate recall of an injury and successive changes in the description of said event.

Some perceive this as malingering, or at best, an attempt to inflate the value of a legitimate injury.
Within the context of an accident, the injured party must describe the event repeatedly for EMS, the ER, family, their personal physician, subsequent medical specialists, and their attorney.

A traumatic memory may be suppressed and forgotten, only to arise unexpectedly when the proper cueing occurs. This is seen with true Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. A patient burned at work functions well at home and around town, until driving past the place of their injury. Memories flood and incapacitate them.

As patients recover from their injury, eventually their support system will slowly fade away. They no longer need home health or mobility aids, their physicians see them less frequently, and their physical therapy eventually ends. Their family expects a return to normalcy.

But the patient may not have returned to their normal state. And that, to an injured person, is unacceptable. A new physician may hear a different rendition of the original accident, one that serves to impress upon the specialist the impact of their injury.

In reviewing medical records, we need to note deviations in recall, reserving judgement as to what that inconsistency might mean.