The permanent functional deficit (déficit fonctionnel permanent, "DFP") is calculated by multiplying the impairment rating retained by the medical expert by a point value. That value is not set by statute: it depends on the rating and on the victim's age at the date of stabilisation (consolidation), according to the reference tables and the case law. The higher the rating and the younger the victim, the higher the point value.
The DFP compensates the definitive reduction in physical, mental or intellectual potential after consolidation, that is, once the victim's condition has stabilised and no longer changes with care. It covers three things at once: the functional sequelae, the permanent pain that persists after consolidation, and the loss of quality of life day to day. It is expressed as a percentage, set by the medical expert.
It must be distinguished from the temporary functional deficit (DFT), which covers the same harm but over the period before consolidation. The DFP is a permanent non-pecuniary head of loss in the Dintilhac classification (nomenclature Dintilhac, the court-endorsed classification of heads of personal-injury loss): it compensates the harm to physical integrity itself, independently of its consequences on income, which fall under other heads: future loss of professional earnings and the impact on future employability (incidence professionnelle).
The calculation rests on two elements:
DFP = rating (%) × point valueThe subtlety lies in how the two variables interact. A high rating in a young victim gives the highest amount, because the sequelae bear on a longer life expectancy and the point value retained is higher. Conversely, at equal rating, advancing age lowers the point value. Confusing the medical scale (which sets the rating) with the indemnity reference tables (which guide the point value) is one of the most common mistakes.
The point value has no single statutory source. Practitioners rely on the indicative reference tables for personal-injury compensation issued by the courts of appeal, known as the référentiel Mornet (September 2025 edition), and on case law dealing with comparable ratings and ages. Those tables offer a grid by age and by rating. They remain indicative: they do not bind the judge, who assesses the loss in their sovereign discretion.
Two regularities structure this grid, and they are the ones to have in mind before opening any table. The point value rises with the rating: a severe impairment is not paid proportionally more than a mild one, it is paid more per point. And it falls with age at consolidation, the sequelae bearing on a shorter remaining lifespan. A high rating in a young victim therefore gives the highest amount, and it is also the case where the gap between two valuations is widest.
A reference table gives a range, not the amount for a given file. Two victims with the same rating and the same age do not obtain the same sum, depending on the injury context, the personal situation and the course of the proceedings. The only way to defend a point value is therefore to test it against what has actually been awarded on close profiles.
That is what a base of quantified case law allows: retrieving the decisions handed down at comparable ratings and ages, then reading the dispersion of the amounts as much as their central value. To place a specific file, the Plato base can be searched at jp.plato.legal, and the search method is detailed in our article on how to find quantified case law.
The table below illustrates the mechanism, the effect of age and rating, not a scale to copy out: every real situation is replayed against comparable case law.
| Profile (illustrative) | Effect on the point value | Reflex |
|---|---|---|
| High rating, young victim | The highest | Highest amount, to be supported by recent decisions |
| Same rating, older victim | Lower | Reduced amount, check the real gap against decisions |
| Low rating (a few %) | Lower per point | Compensable even at a low rating, do not overlook the head |
Justifying the point value retained and anticipating the other side's position means tying each amount to a real decision. That is the work Plato, the only AI specialised in personal injury, automates: it ties each amount to its base of more than 84,000 quantified decisions, and every figure stays traceable back to the exhibit it comes from. See also our complete personal-injury valuation guide and the nomenclature Dintilhac, as well as the assessment of souffrances endurées and of permanent cosmetic damage.
Is the DFP the same thing as the former IPP?
The DFP replaced the IPP (permanent partial disability) with the nomenclature Dintilhac. It is broader: it takes in permanent pain and loss of quality of life, not only the loss of physical capacity.
Who sets the DFP rating?
The medical expert, in their report, after consolidation. The lawyer then values the head from that rating; they do not set the rating themselves.
Is the point value official?
No. It results from indicative reference tables and from case law. Two files with the same rating can lead to different amounts depending on age and on the decisions retained for comparison.
How does age affect the amount?
At equal rating, a younger victim obtains a higher point value, because the sequelae apply over a longer remaining lifespan.
Can the DFP be valued automatically?
Yes. A vertical tool like Plato calculates the head from the rating and proposes a point value supported by comparable decisions, which speeds up the valuation and makes it more reliable.