If you’ve lived long enough to have a medical chart, you probably have a pre-existing condition. Old sports injuries, chronic back pain from a desk job, a prior concussion, a herniated disc that flares if you lift the wrong way. Then a crash happens, and suddenly those same symptoms roar back or evolve into something worse. You go to the ER, the adjuster calls a few days later, and the script starts: “Looks like you already had this problem.” That line is not a misunderstanding, it’s a tactic. Pre-existing conditions are the insurance industry’s favorite lever for shrinking payouts.
An experienced Car Accident Lawyer can turn that lever the other affordable lawyer way. Not by hiding your medical history, but by using it correctly. The law doesn’t punish people for being human. If a negligent driver worsens what you already had, the negligent driver still pays for the difference. The trick is proving the difference with credible evidence and steady advocacy.
Why pre-existing conditions cut both ways
There is a legal principle called the eggshell plaintiff rule. In plain terms, you take the plaintiff as you find them. If a crash aggravates your condition, the defendant is responsible for the aggravated portion, even if a healthier person would have recovered sooner. Insurers know this rule. They also know aggravation is often hard to quantify without careful documentation. That is where a seasoned Injury Lawyer earns their keep.
Pre-existing conditions create two practical challenges. First, separating old symptoms from new ones is rarely straightforward. Pain is subjective, and radiology reads can be nuanced. Second, people with prior injuries sometimes delay care after a collision because they assume they are just having “the usual flare-up.” Delays feed the defense narrative that nothing changed. An Accident Lawyer counters both issues by getting your history on record and building a timeline that connects the dots, not just with medical records, but with testimony, imaging comparisons, and day-in-the-life details that juries understand.
What insurers say versus what the law allows
On calls with adjusters, I have heard the same refrains a hundred times. “Herniated disc existed before.” “Degeneration is normal for age.” “Claimant had prior physical therapy.” Those statements may be technically true and still legally irrelevant if the crash turned a manageable condition into a disabling one. At 35, it’s common to have some disc degeneration on MRI, even without symptoms. If you were running, lifting your kids, and working full days before the wreck, then needed injections and missed weeks afterward, that change is compensable.
Insurance companies speak in absolutes. Lawyers speak in causation and apportionment. The law does not require you to be a blank slate. It requires proof that the collision caused new harm or worsened existing harm. A good Lawyer frames the case around specific changes: pain intensity, frequency, functional limits, and objective findings like range of motion deficits or nerve conduction results. The story isn’t “I had no problems before.” The story is “I had manageable problems that became unmanageable after this crash.”
Getting your medical house in order early
When a new client mentions prior injuries, we do something counterintuitive: we lean into it. The worst thing you can do is pretend the pre-existing condition never existed, then watch the defense find it later. Jurors and judges dislike surprises. Credibility is currency. We start by charting a baseline.
Before the collision, what did life look like? How often did you see doctors? What was your pain level on a typical day? What activities did you avoid, and which ones could you still do? If you had a chronic issue, what treatments helped and how long did relief last? If you were discharged from care before the crash, we capture the date and any notes that you were stable. The goal is to draw a clean line on the timeline, then show how everything shifted after impact.
On the medical side, two sets of records matter: previous records that define your baseline, and post-crash records that define the aggravation. A Car Accident Lawyer coordinates both so nothing falls through the cracks. We request prior imaging and reports, then ask treating providers for a comparative review. It often helps to have the same radiologist read both sets, or to commission a neutral review that can explain subtle changes like new annular tears, fresh edema, or nerve root impingement that didn’t exist previously. With shoulder injuries, for example, a pre-existing partial tear might become a full-thickness tear, and the story is in the details of the ultrasound or MRI.
The credibility trap and how to avoid it
The quickest way to hurt a case is to underreport your history in intake forms. You sit in a waiting room after a crash, rattled and sore, and you check “No” on questions about prior neck or back pain because you do not want to get dismissed. Later, defense counsel gets decades of your records and highlights that form. Now your accuracy is in question.
A decent Accident Lawyer knows how to neutralize that trap. We explain to providers that your “No” was shorthand for “No active treatment at that time” or “No recent flare-ups.” We help you amend records when appropriate and supplement with your prior charts. But it is far cleaner to start honest. If your accident history looks messy, say so. The case does not require perfection. It requires consistent truth.
What proof actually moves the needle
Juries and adjusters respond to specifics. Saying “My pain got worse” is a start. Showing that you went from bowling weekly to needing help carrying groceries is better. Pair that with a physician’s note that your lumbar flexion dropped by 20 degrees and that you now have positive straight-leg raise on the right, and the picture gets clearer. The defense can argue about subjective complaints; it has a harder time arguing with objective, repeated measurements.
Likewise, time-stamped logs matter. Pain diaries, work absence records, overtime lost, caregiving you had to outsource, mileage to appointments, copays that stacked up. Presenting a crisp ledger of expenses and disruptions combats the “just a flare-up” narrative. Many clients underestimate how persuasive well-kept, ordinary records can be. A Lawyer organizes them so the case is not a pile of anecdotes but a chain of evidence.
When a prior condition helps your case
Sometimes a prior diagnosis acts as a spotlight. If you had well-documented, stable degenerative disc disease and were managing with home exercises, then after a T-bone crash you needed epidural steroid injections at L4-L5, the delta stands out. The same is true with headaches after a previous mild concussion. If your baseline included occasional, mild headaches and, after the crash, you developed photophobia, nausea, and cognitive fog confirmed by neuropsych testing, you have a clearer story than someone with no history at all. The pre-existing condition sets a before picture that allows the after to show contrast.
I had a client who wore a FitBit religiously. Months of step counts and heart rate data showed he averaged 12,000 steps a day before the wreck. Afterward, he dropped below 3,000 for weeks, then hovered around 6,000 for months. No medical jargon needed. The numbers told the story. This is where a Lawyer’s job looks more like storytelling than lawyering: finding the ordinary proof you already have.
Apportionment: the practical heart of the argument
Courts often ask experts to apportion injury. What percentage of your current impairment stems from the crash versus your prior condition? It is not a math formula. It is a clinical judgment built from records, imaging, and response to treatment. Defense experts tend to inflate pre-crash percentages. Plaintiff experts tie their opinions to timelines and objective changes.
If a surgeon writes, “The crash converted a degenerative but asymptomatic rotator cuff tear into a symptomatic full-thickness tear requiring repair,” that is powerful. If a physical medicine doctor notes, “Prior to MVA, patient had occasional flares treated with NSAIDs. Since MVA, persistent radicular symptoms required two ESI and ongoing therapy,” that shapes apportionment. A Lawyer curates these opinions, ensures they are adequately disclosed under procedural rules, and prepares the experts to explain the why, not just the what. Vague statements get little traction. Specifics carry weight.
The myth of the perfect plaintiff
Clients sometimes worry they are not “good” plaintiffs because of previous injuries, weight issues, age, or a labor-intensive job. Defense lawyers tap that insecurity. The truth is, most jurors do not expect immaculate health. They expect honesty and effort. If you kept working as long as you could, showed up to therapy, did home exercises, and leveled with your doctors, a prior condition rarely sinks a case. It simply requires careful framing.
I have sat with construction workers whose backs were never pristine. They could still hoist drywall before the crash and could not afterward. That difference is reality, not a moral failing. A good Injury Lawyer helps jurors see the practical loss: the switch from overtime to light duty, the grit it takes to keep showing up while you wait for surgery approval, the pride swallowed when your daughter carries the groceries you used to carry.
Who you treat with matters
After a collision, many people start with primary care or urgent care, which is fine. But prolonged gaps, short check-ups with little detail, and non-specialist notes can leave holes in the record. If your symptoms point to nerve involvement, see a neurologist or a physiatrist. If your shoulder clunks and wakes you at night, see an orthopedic specialist. Chiropractors can provide relief, yet insurers may discount chiropractic-only treatment for moderate to severe injuries unless it is integrated with medical oversight and imaging.
A Car Accident Lawyer coordinates referrals not to inflate bills, but to match symptoms with the right expertise. Specialists document differently. They order targeted tests and include functional assessments. That depth matters months later when adjusters, and possibly jurors, evaluate whether your care makes sense. Continuity matters too. Sporadic treatment invites the argument that you were not hurt badly. Steady, sensible care signals genuine need.
The role of prior unrelated injuries
Separate old from old. If you have a decade-old knee surgery and this crash injured your neck, clarify that in every record. Defense attorneys love to use “prior injury” generically. It is the Lawyer’s job to keep categories clean. We also proactively address anything that might confuse the picture, like a recent gym strain that resolved before the wreck. Transparency prevents the defense from recasting a resolved strain as an ongoing issue.
When prior injuries do affect the same body region, we distinguish pathology. For spine cases, that might mean identifying different levels, sides, or structures. A pre-existing L5-S1 disc bulge is not the same as a post-crash L4-L5 herniation abutting the right L5 nerve root. For shoulder cases, a pre-existing bursal-sided fraying differs from a post-crash articular-sided full-thickness tear. When radiology uses unfamiliar terms, part of the Lawyer’s job is to work with your doctors to explain them in plain English.
Soft-tissue cases and the long tail of pain
Muscle and ligament injuries rarely pop on scans. That does not make them trivial. Whiplash can alter posture, create trigger points, and lead to headaches and sleep disturbance that cascades into fatigue and irritability. People with prior neck tightness often slide farther down that slope after a crash. The defense will press for a quick settlement, pointing to minimal objective findings. Your Lawyer pushes back by documenting function over time: interruption of sleep, decreased tolerance for desk work, the return of symptoms when therapy pauses.
Recovery curves matter. Many clients do get better within six to twelve weeks. Some plateau and need more targeted care. A plateau is not failure, it is data. When therapy notes show steady effort and partial gains, those records become your case’s spine. If you stop too soon because the adjuster calls with a low offer, you may undercut your own proof. A steady course of reasonable treatment is the best antidote to skepticism.
Economic losses with history in the picture
Lost wages are measurable. Diminished earning capacity is trickier, especially when a pre-existing condition already imposed limits. Here, the comparison game returns. What did you earn before versus after? Did you give up overtime? Change roles? Miss a promotion because you could not travel or lift? Vocational experts can map the difference. The defense will argue you were trending downward anyway. We counter with tax returns, supervisor emails, and coworker statements showing real opportunity curtailed by new restrictions.
Home contributions matter too. If you handled yard work, childcare pickups, or elder care without help, then had to hire out or reshuffle the household, those are compensable losses. The law often labels them non-economic or household services, but real people feel them in dollars and dust. Document the help you now need and the time you now spend in waiting rooms rather than on your life.
The settlement dance around pre-existing conditions
Negotiations in these cases follow a pattern. The insurer offers a number that pretends your prior condition accounts for most of the current problem. Your Lawyer responds with a demand letter that walks through the baseline, the change, and the medical opinions on aggravation. High-quality medical narratives from treating doctors carry greater weight than templated form letters. When a treating physician states, with reasons, that the collision is a substantial factor in your current need for care, adjusters listen.
If the carrier will not budge, litigation forces a sharper look. Depositions let your Lawyer lock in defense experts on their apportionment methods. Many fold under specific questions. What records did you review? Which imaging sequences show the supposed “no change”? Did you examine the patient? Can you point to pre-crash notes documenting the same severity and frequency of complaints? Cats look bigger in shadows. Discovery turns on the light.
How a Lawyer shields you from the pre-existing condition pile-on
The day-to-day role of a Lawyer in these cases looks pragmatic.
- Gather and compare records that define before and after, including imaging, therapy notes, and specialist consultations. Prepare you to talk about your history without fear, using consistent language and timelines. Coordinate the right medical voices, from treating physicians to independent experts whose opinions are detailed and defensible. Build the damages picture with pay stubs, calendars, caregiver receipts, and daily-life examples that translate symptoms into impact. Keep negotiations grounded in apportionment law and credible evidence, and pivot to litigation if the insurer leans on buzzwords instead of proof.
None of this requires theatrics. It requires diligence and a clean narrative.
Common pitfalls and the course corrections
People fall into predictable traps when pre-existing conditions are at play. They shrug off new pain as a flare until weeks have passed. They stop therapy the moment it starts helping, then relapse without documentation. They avoid telling doctors their full history, then face impeachment later. Each has a fix. Seek early evaluation even if you suspect a flare. Continue treatment long enough to reach a stable point, whether recovery or plateau. Tell every provider, every time, the same concise history. Your Lawyer can help you craft that history so it is accurate and digestible.
Social media deserves a mention. A photo of you smiling at a niece’s birthday becomes “activity inconsistent with claimed pain” in the wrong hands. Smiling is not evidence of wellness, but do not hand the defense out-of-context snapshots. Tighten your privacy settings and let the case speak through records, not curated feeds.
Edge cases: prior claims, surgeries, and degenerative diagnoses
If you had a prior claim or lawsuit for a related body part, expect scrutiny. It does not bar recovery, but it heightens the need for clean apportionment. Obtain settlement paperwork if available, especially if it includes statements about your recovery status. For prior surgeries, a new crash can still injure adjacent levels, disrupt scar tissue, or accelerate degeneration. Surgeons are often candid about whether a procedure would have been necessary absent the crash. That opinion, when grounded in imaging and intraoperative findings, can carry a case.
Degenerative diagnoses like spondylosis or osteoarthritis are not defense trump cards. Many people live well with them. What changes after a crash counts. Increased medication, injections that were never needed before, new assistive devices, and permanent restrictions that did not exist pre-crash speak louder than labels.
What “good faith” looks like from you
Lawyering works best when clients do three things. First, tell the unvarnished truth about your history and symptoms. Second, follow through on reasonable medical advice, or explain why you cannot. Third, live your life as best you can within your limits, and let the records reflect both effort and constraint. Adjusters scout for signs of exaggeration. Consistency beats perfection. If a treatment does not help, say so. If you skip appointments because of childcare or money, tell your Lawyer so we can address it rather than let it look like indifference.
When to pick up the phone
If the adjuster is already hinting that your case is “mostly pre-existing,” bring in counsel. A short consultation can keep you from saying something that will haunt the file for months. Most personal injury firms work on contingency, so you do not pay upfront. A local Accident Lawyer also brings jurisdictional nuance. Some states handle apportionment differently, some allow certain types of expert testimony more freely, and some have rules about collateral source payments that affect strategy.
Pick someone who explains things plainly, shows interest in your specific story, and does not minimize your history. Your goal is not to erase your past, it is to trace a clear line from the crash to the harms you are living with now.
The bottom line
Pre-existing conditions are part of the human condition. Insurers treat them like a discount code. The law does not. A skilled Injury Lawyer transforms a messy medical history into a coherent before-and-after narrative backed by records, expert opinions, and the quiet evidence of daily life. If the crash made you worse, you have a path. It is not about pretending you were perfect. It is about proving how far the needle moved and who pushed it.