Acute vs. Chronic Injury Imaging Analysis

One of the most common disputes in injury litigation involves whether imaging findings represent new trauma or long-standing conditions.

Galaxy Readers provides expert acute versus chronic injury imaging analysis to help defense attorneys understand the true nature of radiologic findings.

Our subspecialty radiologists evaluate imaging characteristics that indicate timing, chronicity, and progression allowing defense teams to determine whether findings are attributable to the incident or pre-existing in nature.

Why Timing Matters

Imaging findings are frequently described without sufficient context regarding age or chronicity.

This can lead to:

• Degenerative findings labeled as traumatic

• Long-standing conditions presented as new injury

• Prior pathology attributed to a recent incident

• Assumptions unsupported by objective imaging markers

Determining whether findings are acute or chronic is essential to accurate causation and valuation.

What Our Radiologists Evaluate

Acute versus chronic analysis includes assessment of:

• Presence or absence of edema

• Inflammatory or acute signal changes

• Chronic remodeling or degeneration

• Imaging patterns consistent with aging

• Structural findings indicating long-standing disease

• Comparison with expected trauma-related changes

These indicators help clarify whether imaging supports recent injury or pre-existing pathology.

Independent, Objective Review

Galaxy Readers provides independent, evidence-based imaging analysis performed by subspecialty-trained radiologists.

Our reviews focus on objective findings not assumptions ensuring conclusions are grounded in radiologic science.

Request an Acute vs. Chronic Imaging Review

If timing or chronicity is in dispute, Galaxy Readers can provide the clarity needed to evaluate exposure accurately. Contact Us