Dealing with Pre-Existing Conditions: Car Wreck Lawyer Strategy

Every car crash case has an origin story, and it rarely starts on the day of the collision. Bodies carry history. Old slips from a ladder, youth sports injuries, a spine that has worked a desk for twenty years. When a collision happens, those histories collide too. The defense knows it and will use it, often successfully, unless the plaintiff’s team addresses the overlap directly. A seasoned car wreck lawyer expects the pre-existing condition fight and builds the case around it rather than trying to walk around it.

The law protects the vulnerable as it finds them. The “eggshell plaintiff” doctrine says the negligent driver takes the injured person as they are. If your neck was fragile and the crash turned a manageable problem into a disabling one, the at-fault driver remains responsible for the full extent of harm caused by the crash.

That principle is clean on paper, but litigation rarely is. Jurors want fairness. Defense counsel leans into that instinct, arguing that the plaintiff was already “a ticking time bomb” and trying to allocate as much of the pain, treatment, and cost back to history. A car accident attorney who knows this terrain does not argue the client had a perfect body. Instead, they separate the story of manageable, stable issues from the story of new pathology and worsened function after the wreck.

I have watched cases sink because a client tried to omit a prior injury on an intake form or minimized long-ago treatment during a recorded statement. The insurance carrier will order every medical record it can find, often going back ten or more years. Pharmacy histories, chiropractic notes, workers’ compensation files, and old ER visits appear at the worst moment, usually during deposition or mediation. Once credibility takes a hit, settlement value follows.

A reliable car accident lawyer preps clients to disclose pre-existing conditions early, in measured detail, with context. “Yes, I had a back strain two years ago. It resolved after four weeks of physical therapy. This crash created a different kind of pain that radiates into my leg and has not resolved.” Jurors forgive pre-existing vulnerabilities. They punish perceived dishonesty.

Three buckets frame the medical story:

Treating physicians are the most credible narrators of these buckets. The car wreck lawyer’s job is to secure clear, patient-specific opinions from doctors, not canned letters. A strong record will use everyday language tied to objective findings. For example, the orthopedic surgeon might explain that prior films showed only mild degenerative disc disease, while post-crash MRI shows a protrusion compressing the C6 nerve root that correlates with new numbness in the thumb and decreased triceps strength on exam. That is a far firmer foundation than broad statements like “the accident made it worse.”

Defense lawyers love the word “degenerative.” It sounds slow and inevitable, the kind of thing that would have happened anyway. The plaintiff’s team counters with objective anchors:

A car accident attorney who thinks like a claims adjuster on evidence value increases settlement leverage. Adjusters assign points, implicitly or explicitly, for imaging, specialist opinions, and documented work impacts. Meeting them with the same structure keeps the file away from the “degenerative, low-value” bin.

Physicians live in medical probability, not legal arguments. Left alone, they may chart cautious phrases that the defense later weaponizes. A car accident lawyer can ethically assist with clarity. The goal is not to script testimony, but to ask the right questions and provide the right records.

Two examples of helpful phrasing from treating doctors:

That language aligns with the standard jurors will hear and closes gaps the defense likes to pry open.

When a claim hits a carrier, a nurse reviewer or defense medical consultant combs the chart. They look for gaps in care, inconsistent self-reports, and the earliest mention of symptoms. They are trained to discount late-onset complaints and attribute them to normal life or degeneration.

A car accident lawyer prepares for that audit by doing it first. Read the primary care notes from the year before the crash. If back pain appears, note the frequency and intensity, and whether it resolved. Look for non-event causes like moving furniture or yardwork that might be misused later. If a gap exists between the crash and the first medical visit, explain it with real context, like lack of insurance, initial hope it would resolve, or cultural discomfort with seeing doctors. Jurors understand human patterns, but they need the reason articulated.

Carriers often request an IME. The doctor is paid by the defense and sees the client once, sometimes for less than thirty minutes, with a goal of minimizing causation and impairment. IME reports often emphasize “symptom magnification,” “nonorganic findings,” or Waddell signs. They may attribute every complaint to age or pre-existing degeneration.

Preparation matters. Clients should understand the purpose of the exam, the importance of consistent history, and the need to avoid guessing. If an IME doctor asks how far you can walk, and the answer varies day to day, say so. Do not pick a number. If pain is better with rest and worse with activity, describe that rhythm in concrete terms. After the IME, memorialize the exam experience in a declaration, including duration, tests performed, and any dismissive remarks. That contemporaneous account can soften the IME’s impact with a jury later.

Valuing a case with pre-existing conditions is an exercise in separating the strands: which harms belong to the crash, which would have occurred anyway, and which were accelerated by the crash. Two practical approaches help:

Defense counsel often pushes the “apportionment” theme, asking experts to split percentages of impairment between pre-existing and accident-related causes. In many states, the defense bears that burden. Know your jurisdiction. If the defendant cannot reliably apportion, the jury may be instructed to find for the plaintiff on the full aggravation.

Beyond medicine, two expert lanes deepen the story. A vocational expert assesses how new restrictions interact with a person’s job demands. If a warehouse worker with old, manageable back stiffness now has a permanent 25-pound lifting limit, the expert can explain how that narrows available work, affects wages, and increases risk of future unemployment. For a desk worker, the same lifting limit may have minimal wage impact but still affect daily living and household roles.

A life care planner is appropriate when injuries lead to ongoing needs like medications, injections every six to twelve months, periodic imaging, assistive devices, or home modifications. When a pre-existing condition existed, the planner must carefully differentiate pre-crash needs from post-crash additions, often in collaboration with the treating doctor. Transparent allocations prevent a defense narrative that the plan is padded.

Jurors relate to specifics: how a father once kneeling to bathe a toddler now sets a stool beside the tub and directs from a distance, how a grandmother who walked two miles each morning now does a slow lap around the block and pays for it at night, how a welder who prided himself on perfect beads shakes after an hour on the torch. These examples land more strongly than general statements about “pain” or “limitations.”

A good car accident attorney builds these vignettes with co-workers, friends, and family. Avoid vague platitudes. Anchor the changes to dates, routines, and things. Tie them to work product, missed events, and the adaptations the person had to invent.

Defense teams mine social media. A smiling photo at a nephew’s birthday becomes Exhibit A that the plaintiff is fine. People perform for cameras. They stand straight for a moment, they lift a niece for a picture, and they pay for it that night. The law permits that reality to be told, but the optics still matter.

Counsel should instruct clients to avoid posting about injuries and activities during litigation. If posts already exist, prepare to explain them. “That was the only hike I tried all year, and I took two days off work afterward. My doctor told me to try graded activity.” Then support the explanation with texts, pharmacy refills, or follow-up notes. Consistency turns a vulnerability into a shrug for the jury.

Mediation in a case with pre-existing conditions is a negotiation over uncertainty. The defense argues for heavy discounts, predicting a jury will believe the injuries were inevitable. The plaintiff’s side prices in the risk that causation will get muddy. Experienced mediators push both ways.

A car wreck lawyer increases settlement value by bringing the same trial-ready package to mediation: clean medical summaries, side-by-side imaging comparisons, short clips from treating doctors, a damages timeline, and a transparent allocation for past, future, and pre-existing elements. Overreach invites a lowball. Precision invites respect. In my experience, files with disciplined causation narratives routinely settle 20 to 40 percent higher than similar files with vague claims of “worsened pain.”

There are hard cases. Some clients had serious degeneration and chronic pain long before the crash. Some had prior MRIs with herniations at the same level that later required surgery after the collision. Others have long care gaps after the crash because of job loss or family obligations. Here are pragmatic tactics that keep these cases viable:

Jurors do not like brawls between experts. They appreciate surgical cross-examination that uses the defense doctor’s own habits and omissions.

A few reliable pivots:

Walk the doctor to those concessions. Do not overreach. Jurors reward moderation.

Most states have pattern instructions on aggravation of a pre-existing condition. They generally tell jurors to compensate for the aggravation caused by the defendant and not for the condition itself. A car accident lawyer should preview that language in opening and revisit it in closing, connecting it to the evidence they presented. Pair the instruction with a visual damages timeline that distinguishes pre, post, and ongoing phases. Jurors appreciate frameworks that https://freead1.net/ad/5777012/mogy-law-firm.html reflect what they have heard rather than lawyerly abstractions.

Early information shapes the whole file. During intake, the car accident attorney should lock in granular snapshots:

Clients often underestimate the importance of these details. Clarify that they are the spine of the case.

Lawyers do not practice medicine. Still, clients ask about treatment paths because litigation pressures and health needs intersect. The most ethical advice remains simple: listen to your doctor, follow reasonable recommendations, and do not undertake procedures solely for the case. The defense can smell “lawyer-driven” care.

Steer clients toward providers who document thoroughly and who schedule re-evaluations tied to function. Encourage completion of home exercise programs and attendance at therapy, not because a record looks fuller, but because consistent care helps recovery and strengthens the authenticity of the claim.

Insurers tend to undervalue claims with pre-existing conditions in the pre-suit phase. If your causation story is well-structured but the offer remains anchored to “degeneration,” filing suit may be the only way to reset expectations. Litigation allows subpoenas for pre-crash imaging, depositions of treating physicians, and a shot at a neutral mediator who has seen these fights before.

On the other hand, filing too early can freeze an incomplete medical arc. If surgery is likely but not scheduled, or if a specialist consult is pending that will clarify causation, waiting a few months can lift value significantly. The calculus should weigh statutes of limitation, client financial pressure, and the trajectory of care. There is no universal rule. Judgment calls here separate average case outcomes from excellent ones.

Recorded statements given early in the process can cause lasting damage. Insurers ask about prior injuries, sometimes in rapid-fire fashion that encourages incomplete answers. A car accident attorney typically advises clients not to give recorded statements, or to do so only after careful preparation and with counsel present. If a statement is unavoidable, rehearsal matters. Clients should answer exactly what is asked, not guess, and say when they do not know.

When clients have already spoken to insurance and downplayed prior issues, get the transcript fast. Prepare to correct the record with a letter that explains the confusion and supplies supporting medical entries. Delay in clarification makes the gap look like deceit instead of memory.

There is no universal multiplier that works across cases. Still, patterns exist. In soft tissue cases with documented pre-existing strain and no objective new injury, settlements may land near documented medicals plus a modest amount for pain, often in the low five figures depending on jurisdiction. Add objective radiculopathy with conservative care, and the range can climb significantly, sometimes mid to high five figures. Traumatic aggravations that lead to injections or surgery typically move into six figures, especially when wage loss and vocational impact are proven.

What moves numbers up or down?

Experienced car wreck lawyers watch these levers constantly, adjusting strategy as the evidence develops.

Pre-existing conditions are more than legal complications. They are parts of people’s lives that existed before the crash and will continue after the case closes. A lawyer who treats them as mere obstacles risks missing the client’s real needs. Sometimes that means pushing for a settlement that funds a home modification rather than a bigger number on paper with limited practical relief. Sometimes it means helping a client find a pain specialist who communicates clearly and respects their history.

The duty to maximize recovery lives alongside the duty to tell the truth. The strongest cases embrace both. A car accident lawyer who acknowledges the body’s past, shows precisely what the crash changed, and resists the temptation to inflate brings jurors to a fair place. That is not just good strategy. It is the point of the work.