Pre-Existing Conditions in Personal Injury Cases: How They Impact Your Claim

One of the most common defense strategies in personal injury cases is to point to a pre-existing medical condition. If you have ever had back pain, arthritis, or an old injury, chances are the insurance company or defense attorney will argue that your current symptoms have little to do with the accident and everything to do with your medical history. Understanding this argument—and how to counter it—is critical to protecting your right to fair compensation.

The Expected Defense Argument

When defendants raise the issue of pre-existing conditions, the underlying theme is usually that the plaintiff was already injured or already prone to the type of symptoms being claimed. They may argue that the accident did not cause the injury, or at most caused a temporary flare-up of symptoms that should have resolved quickly. In some cases, they go so far as to suggest the plaintiff is using the accident as an opportunity to be compensated for long-standing health problems unrelated to the defendant’s conduct.

Medical records, prior complaints of pain, or even something as minor as a note in a primary care visit years earlier may be used to suggest that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident. The goal is to minimize damages by shifting focus away from the defendant’s negligence and onto the plaintiff’s medical history.

Why This Argument Isn’t the End of the Story

The law does not allow a negligent party to escape responsibility just because their victim was not in perfect health. Under the well-established “eggshell plaintiff” doctrine, a defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them. If someone is more vulnerable to injury due to age, a pre-existing condition, or prior injury, the defendant is still responsible for all harm caused by their negligence. In other words, the fact that you may have had a prior condition does not relieve the wrongdoer of liability if the accident made that condition worse or caused new injuries altogether.

Medical testimony often makes the distinction clear: even if you had an underlying condition, the accident may have aggravated it, accelerated its progression, or transformed a manageable issue into a debilitating one. That change is compensable, and the law recognizes your right to recover for it.

The Most Effective Rebuttal

The strongest rebuttal to the “pre-existing condition” defense is medical evidence that shows a clear change in your condition after the accident. This may involve testimony from treating physicians, comparison of diagnostic imaging before and after the incident, or expert opinions about the difference in symptoms and treatment required. For example, if someone had mild arthritis but had never needed surgery, and after the accident they required joint replacement, the connection is evident.

Equally important is the plaintiff’s own story. Jurors often find it persuasive to hear how someone’s daily life changed after the accident compared to before. Even if a plaintiff had occasional back pain before, if they were able to work, play with their children, and enjoy hobbies without limitation, and now they cannot, that contrast speaks volumes.

Ultimately, the defense argument about pre-existing conditions is not a bar to recovery. It is an expected tactic designed to reduce damages. With the right preparation, strong medical support, and a clear narrative about how life has changed, plaintiffs can overcome this argument and secure the compensation they deserve.

CONTACT PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES TODAY

If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto accident, contact Phillips & Associates at (818) 348-9515 for a free consultation today. You will immediately be put in touch with John Phillips or Patrick DiFilippo, who can help determine whether you have a case and advise you on the best course of action moving forward.