Pre-Existing Conditions Do Not Erase New Accident Injuries
When someone is injured in a car accident, the defense may look for reasons to argue that the accident was not responsible for the person's condition. That argument can become especially pointed when the injured person already had medical conditions before the collision.
In one case, our client was involved in a serious hydroplaning accident and had significant pre-existing conditions. She did not undergo surgery as a result of the accident, but she experienced increased pain and pursued medical treatment that she had not needed before the collision. The case ultimately resolved for the full $1 million policy limit.
The challenge was not simply establishing that our client had been injured. It was demonstrating the difference between her condition before the accident and the condition she experienced afterward.
California Law Recognizes Aggravation of Pre-Existing Conditions
Having a medical condition before an accident does not automatically prevent an injured person from recovering compensation for harm caused by the accident.
California law specifically addresses situations in which a defendant's conduct makes an existing physical or emotional condition worse. Under CACI 3927, Aggravation of Pre-existing Condition or Disability, a plaintiff is not entitled to damages for a condition that existed before the defendant's conduct. However, when the defendant's conduct aggravates that condition, the plaintiff may recover damages that reasonably and fairly compensate for the resulting harm.
California also recognizes the principle commonly described as the "eggshell plaintiff" rule. In general, a person who causes an injury takes the injured person as they find them. A defendant cannot avoid responsibility simply because an existing condition makes someone more susceptible to injury.
California courts have recognized that:
- Pre-existing conditions do not automatically eliminate liability. If an accident makes an existing condition worse, the defendant may be responsible for the resulting aggravation.
- A more vulnerable plaintiff is still entitled to protection. A defendant generally cannot argue that the plaintiff would have suffered less harm if she had not already had a particular condition.
- The focus is on the harm caused by the accident. The critical question becomes what changed because of the defendant's conduct.
For an injured person with a complicated medical history, establishing that distinction requires more than simply pointing to a diagnosis. The medical evidence must tell the story of what the person's condition looked like before the accident and what happened afterward.
Medical Records Helped Show What Changed
One of the most important aspects of this case was developing a clear picture of our client's medical condition on both sides of the accident.
When someone has pre-existing conditions, the defense may point to medical records showing that the condition existed before the collision. That information cannot simply be ignored. Instead, the case needs to address what those records actually demonstrate and how the client's condition changed after the accident.
Our approach focused on the differences before and after the hydroplaning incident:
- Pre-accident records established the baseline. The client's medical history provided a reference point for understanding her condition before the collision.
- Post-accident records documented the change. Medical records after the accident helped establish the increased symptoms and treatment that followed.
- The client's testimony filled in important details. Her own account of how she felt before the accident compared with how she felt afterward provided important context for the medical evidence.
- The evidence connected the change to the accident. Showing a clear progression from the collision to increased symptoms and treatment helped counter the argument that the client's condition was simply the continuation of her pre-existing problems.
That comparison can be particularly important when an injured person does not have a dramatic surgical injury. A case does not necessarily become less serious simply because the treatment does not include surgery.
Treatment She Had Not Needed Before the Accident Mattered
Our client pursued treatment after the accident that she had not undergone before the collision. Those procedures provided important evidence of the pain she was experiencing and the efforts being made to address it.
Her treatment included PRP injections and radiofrequency ablation and medial branch block procedures, commonly referred to as RFA and MBB. The significance was not simply that these procedures appeared in her medical records. Their timing and purpose helped demonstrate what changed after the accident.
- They established the procedures were new after the accident. Our client had not undergone these treatments before the collision.
- They documented ongoing symptoms. The treatment reflected the pain she was experiencing after the accident.
- They demonstrated efforts to obtain relief. Rather than simply reporting ongoing discomfort, she pursued medical care intended to reduce her symptoms.
- The treatment history supported the before-and-after comparison. Looking at the medical care before and after the collision helped illustrate the difference in her condition.
This kind of evidence can be particularly important when the defense argues that an injured person's symptoms were entirely attributable to an earlier condition.
Overcoming the "Her Injuries Were Pre-Existing" Argument
A pre-existing condition defense can sound persuasive if it is presented without context. Someone had a medical condition before the accident, so the argument goes, the accident did not cause the current symptoms.
But that is not necessarily the relevant question.
The more important issue is whether the accident aggravated the condition and caused additional harm. That requires looking carefully at the client's medical history, treatment, symptoms, and testimony.
In this case, the evidence helped establish that distinction.
The defense could not simply point to the client's prior conditions and treat everything that happened afterward as though it had existed before the collision. The medical records and the client's testimony provided a more complete picture of her condition and the changes that occurred following the hydroplaning accident.
That distinction was central to pursuing the claim for the full available insurance coverage.
Knowing the Available Insurance Coverage Matters
The case ultimately resulted in a $1 million recovery under a single combined single limit policy.
Insurance coverage can become an important part of evaluating a serious personal injury claim. The amount available may affect how a claim is pursued and what constitutes a meaningful resolution.
In significant accident cases, it can be important to determine:
- What coverage is available. Identifying the applicable liability policy and its limits is an important part of evaluating potential recovery.
- Whether additional coverage exists. Depending on the circumstances, other applicable policies or underinsured motorist coverage may need to be considered.
- Whether the available limits reflect the severity of the claim. A serious injury claim should be evaluated in light of both the damages and the insurance coverage available to satisfy them.
In this case, the available coverage was a $1 million single-policy limit, and the claim ultimately resolved for that full amount.
No Surgery Does Not Mean No Significant Injury
Another important aspect of this case is that our client did not undergo surgery.
There can be a tendency to view surgery as a dividing line between a serious injury and a less significant one. That is not how every injury should be evaluated. The actual impact of an accident depends on the person's symptoms, medical history, treatment, limitations, and long-term consequences.
Our client's claim demonstrated that significant compensation can be appropriate even when an accident victim's treatment does not include surgery.
Her ongoing symptoms required treatment and affected her life after the collision. The fact that she already had medical conditions did not mean she should simply be expected to accept a worsening of those conditions without compensation.
The Takeaway for Accident Victims with Pre-Existing Conditions
If you already have a medical condition when an accident occurs, you should not assume that you cannot pursue compensation for injuries or aggravation caused by the accident.
The key is establishing what the accident actually changed.
That may involve carefully reviewing medical records, obtaining testimony about the person's condition before and after the incident, documenting new treatment, and addressing defense arguments directly rather than allowing the pre-existing diagnosis to define the entire claim.
A pre-existing condition can make an injury claim more complicated, but it does not necessarily make the claim weaker. When an accident aggravates an existing condition, California law recognizes that the resulting harm may be compensable.
Work with Experienced Attorneys When an Accident Changes Your Health
A serious accident can become even more complicated when you are already dealing with a medical condition. Insurance companies may focus heavily on your prior medical history, making it important to establish a clear record of what your condition was before the accident and what changed afterward.
Richard | Bartlett Lawyers represents injured individuals in Ventura and throughout the surrounding communities. Our car accident attorneys can review your medical history, investigate the circumstances of your accident, evaluate the treatment you received, and pursue compensation for the harm caused or aggravated by the incident.
Call (805) 438-2440 or contact us online to discuss your case.