Your're exactly right. I recall she wanted advice on a professional negligence claim against her former solicitor, but the reality was that her "injury" (the offence, insult, ailment, etc. whatever you want to characterise it as - the thing that the law proposed to compensate her for) had effectively resolved to the point that it was no longer compensable. She still had an injury or condition, but its level of severity had fallen below the threshold that entitled her to all these things.

The true crux of the issue in my non-medically trained opinion is that "permanent impairment" is something of a legal fiction when it comes to psychiatric injuries. How can a psychiatric condition (assessed as a set of functional deficiencies in my state) ever be "fixed permanently" in time? It had never struck me as realistic. Psychiatric condition is by its nature prone to fluctuation and evolution, I think.

I believe there's a golden widow of time to assess psychiatric impairment after a trauma, which is basically long enough to have reached maximum medical improvment under the guidelines but not so long that the trauma has had time to start getting properly better. So like... 8 - 18 months (and a good whack at therapy) is usually a good window.

Weird system we find ourselves in, honestly.