Is a plaintiff's failure to seek medical attention consistent with the fact that nothing has changed?

The worker’s representative went on to note that in Edmonson v. Payer 2011 BCSC 118[4], the court observed that except in severe or catastrophic cases, the injury at issue is not the only thing of consequence in the plaintiff’s life, so the absence of reference to a symptom in a chart note of a particular visit cannot be the sole basis for any inference about the existence or non-existence of that symptom. At most, the court said, it indicates only that it was not the focus of the discussion on that occasion. The court said there may be cases where a plaintiff’s description of his or her symptoms is clearly inconsistent with a failure to seek medical attention, permitting the court to draw adverse conclusions about the plaintiff’s credibility, but a plaintiff whose condition neither deteriorates nor improves is not obliged to constantly bother busy doctors with reports that nothing has changed, particularly if the plaintiff has no reason to expect that the doctor will be able to offer any new or different treatment. Similarly, the court said, a plaintiff who seeks medical attention for unrelated conditions is not obliged to recount the history of the accident and resulting injury to a doctor who is not being asked to treat that injury and has no reason to be interested in it.