If you fail to treat your injuries you may be creating difficulties for your claim. The problem with a lack of treatment is that the insurance company now potentially has the argument that you have failed to “mitigate” your losses. Basically, a defendant (insurer) can argue that if an injured person fails to take reasonable steps to get better, the injured person shouldn’t be able to pin the ongoing problems on the defendant. It is very important not to give an insurer this argument – they can only make this argument if you give it to them (i.e. by failing to get reasonable treatment for your injuries, as needed). If you are unable to obtain treatment due to lack of funds, this can be provided as a reasonable excuse for failing to obtain treatment.
This duty to mitigate was discussed by Justice Rooke in a successful trial I had a few years back :
The law requires a plaintiff to take reasonable steps to mitigate his or her loss:
British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2004 SCC 38,  2 S.C.R. 74 at para. 106. In Philip v. Hironaka, (1998), 210 A.R. 1 (Q.B.) Girgulis J. aptly summarized the “duty” placed upon a plaintiff to mitigate his or her loss, at para. 43 as “a duty based upon the concept that a person should not be entitled to be compensated for a loss which he could have reasonably avoided”. As such, the Defendants argue that Ms. Russell should not be compensated for her ongoing injuries if she unreasonably failed to pursue certain forms of treatment that would have assisted in alleviating or in curing her condition, or in helping her recover at an earlier date. The onus of proving that a plaintiff failed to mitigate his or her loss lies on the defendant: Aujla (Next Friend of) v. La, 1998 ABQB 929, 230 A.R. 277 (Jones J.) para. 112; Byron v. Larson, 2004 ABCA 398, 357 A.R. 201 para. 33; and Vermilion Valley Ambulance Ltd. v. Vermilion (Town), 2007 ABQB 580 (Crighton J.) para. 83.