The first real conversation I have with a new client often begins with a confession. Someone mentioning an old back injury from a warehouse job, a torn meniscus from high school football, a fender bender two years ago that never quite resolved. They say it hesitantly, as if prior injuries are a fatal flaw. They are not. They are a fact of life, and when handled correctly, they often strengthen a personal injury case rather than ruin it.
Insurance carriers bet on silence and shame. They hope you gloss over your history, then they can spring it on you later to undermine your credibility. A seasoned personal injury lawyer treats prior injuries as an evidentiary project. With careful medical documentation, the right experts, and disciplined storytelling, we show how a new trauma aggravated old problems or created new ones altogether. The work is meticulous. It is also deeply practical, grounded in medicine, physics, and the diary of a person’s daily life.
Why prior injuries sit at the center of the dispute
Insurers do not pay for what they do not have to. When they see words like degenerative disc disease, arthritic changes, or preexisting shoulder tendinopathy, they reach for arguments: the injuries were already there, the crash was minor, the symptoms are from normal aging. In motor vehicle collisions, this dance plays out constantly. A car accident claim lawyer knows the pattern, and more importantly, how to break it.
Jurors understand that bodies come with mileage. What they do not like is confusion. If the plaintiff can explain the difference between baseline pain and post-crash disability, with medical records to match, the fact of a prior condition becomes a thread in a coherent story. If the plaintiff forgets dates, misstates surgeries, or allows gaps in treatment to go unexplained, the defense builds a credibility case even stronger than their causation case.
The eggshell principle and its limits
The law has a practical rule, often summarized this way: you take the plaintiff as you find them. If a driver rear-ends a person with fragile bones, they are responsible for the full extent of the harm caused, even if a sturdier person would have been less hurt. That principle does not let a plaintiff blame the defendant for preexisting damage, but it does require the defendant to pay for aggravation of that damage.
The line is often the battle. What portion of today’s neck pain belongs to degenerative changes visible on a scan five years ago, and what portion belongs to the deceleration and torque of the recent crash? Objective imaging rarely decides it alone. We rely on timing of symptoms, functional losses, consistency of complaints, and the narratives of treating providers. Causation lives in the overlap of medicine and lived experience.
What a good lawyer asks on day one
Before I order a single record, I ask about the timeline of pain. Where did it start? What makes it worse? What changed after the incident? I want specificity. If before the collision you jogged three miles twice a week, and now you stop after a few blocks because your leg tingles, that is a functional change. If your lower back bothered you after raking leaves for an hour, but now it spasms when you climb stairs, that is a measurable difference.
The second thing I ask is about prior providers: chiropractors, physical therapists, orthopedists, pain clinics. Names and rough dates help us locate records. Pharmacy histories matter too. A switch from ibuprofen to prescription muscle relaxers or gabapentin after the crash speaks volumes. We also map lifetime injuries, not just the recent ones. That sprained ankle from soccer might matter if knee pain is at issue now, https://octopus.do/8xb4av6wi58 because altered gait can cascade into hip and back complaints.
Documentation that carries weight
Medical records are not written for litigation. They are written quickly, under pressure, and often by people who did not witness the crash. That means the first urgent care note might say neck strain, while the main problem six weeks later becomes shoulder impingement. A defense expert will pounce on that shift. A good personal injury lawyer anticipates it, then ties the story together with treating source statements and a timeline.
Contemporaneous complaints matter. If the emergency department record notes head pain, then headaches recur in your primary care notes within days, and a neurologist documents post-traumatic migraine a month later, the chain holds. If you wait five months to mention headaches, the chain frays. That does not doom the claim, but it reshapes strategy. We might lean more on biomechanical evidence or witness testimony to explain delayed onset.
Imaging earns its place when interpreted correctly. Degenerative disc disease, for example, is common by middle age. A defendant’s radiologist will point at osteophytes and dehydration of discs and call them “old.” The question is not whether degeneration existed, but whether the crash produced an annular tear, changed a bulge to a herniation, or converted a quiet condition into a symptomatic one. Comparing pre and post images helps, but many clients never had a baseline MRI. In those cases, we rely on the suddenness of symptoms, the correlation with activity, and the escalation of care as proof of aggravation.
Aggravation by the numbers
In practical terms, juries and adjusters want to know how much worse a person became and for how long. I often build a simple pre and post profile: work attendance, sleep quality, household chores, hobbies, medication use, and medical appointments. A forklift operator who missed zero days for years, then lost six weeks after a rear-end collision, followed by intermittent restrictions, paints a clearer picture than pages of pain scales alone.
I like ranges more than absolutes when precision is impossible. Saying you slept five to six hours before and now average three to four, with frequent awakenings from back spasms, aligns with the imperfect recall of real life. Anchoring the account with fixed points helps: vacation photos of hiking before, cancelled camping trip after; a half-marathon time from the fall before, a half-mile walk abandoned the month after. These are not theatrics. They are reality checks.
The defense playbook, translated
A motor vehicle accident lawyer who has tried cases hears the same refrains often enough to predict them:
- You had degenerative changes before, so your pain today is from natural aging. The car damage was modest, so the forces were too low to cause real harm. You had gaps in treatment, so your reported disability cannot be severe. You improved by month three, so any care after that is unrelated. You did not tell the ER about your knee, so the knee is a later invention.
Each of these talking points has an answer rooted in evidence. Degeneration is common and silent until provoked. Property damage correlates poorly with bodily injury, especially with low rear impacts that transfer forces to the occupant. Gaps in treatment often reflect insurance barriers, appointment delays, or brief periods of hoped-for improvement. Post concussive symptoms and soft tissue injuries can wax and wane, and medical necessity is judged by treating providers, not adjusters. As for incomplete ER complaints, acute care focuses on life threats and the loudest pain, not a complete head-to-toe inventory.
How we use experts without letting them run the show
Experts do not win cases on their own. They translate. A physiatrist explains how a whiplash mechanism irritates facet joints. A neurologist connects head trauma to cognitive fog. A biomechanical engineer addresses force vectors and seat belt dynamics. Their role is to arm the jury with understanding, not to overcomplicate the story. Good experts acknowledge what is unknown, which paradoxically increases their credibility.
I ask experts to tie their opinions to medical records and to plain observations. If an orthopedist notes that a patient’s cervical range of motion dropped by 40 percent after the crash and only partially recovered with therapy, and that this pattern matches inflamed facet joints, the testimony reads as clinical, not speculative. Defense experts who recite literature without engaging the patient’s particulars tend to lose jurors quickly.
Handling prior claims and recorded statements
If you filed a claim five years ago for a crash and treated for your back, assume the defense will find it. Assume they will obtain that entire file. The worst mistake is pretending it never happened. A personal injury lawyer prefers to front-load this history, explain the prior course, and demonstrate your return to baseline. When we can show that you settled a claim, then resumed all normal activities for years, the notion of a chronic, unrelenting condition fades.
Recorded statements to insurers after the new crash demand caution. Many carriers ask about prior injuries early, before you have retrieved your records. Vague answers become impeachment later. The safest move is to politely decline a recorded statement or to have your car accident attorney present. Short and precise beats expansive and speculative. “I was treated for lower back pain in 2019, completed physical therapy, and had no ongoing restrictions until this collision.” That sentence has teeth because it leaves little room for creative misquote.
When a small crash creates a big problem
Not every serious injury comes from a destroyed vehicle. Low-speed city collisions can produce stubborn soft tissue injuries, particularly in older occupants or those with preexisting spine changes. Defense lawyers love photos of minor bumper damage. Jurors understand that bodies can be fragile even when bumpers hold up, but you need more than an assertion. Therapy notes showing guarded movement, trigger point injections with documented response, and consistent complaints at each visit help erase the prejudice of “little crash, little injury.”
Counterintuitively, I have seen larger visible damage make causation easier but damages harder, because severe crashes sometimes come with a clean surgical fix and shorter recovery. Small visible damage with latent symptoms can require longer conservative care, scattered across months of appointments, with more impact on daily life. The point is not that one pattern is better. The point is that photographs of metal do not tell the story of tissue.
The importance of consistent care, without over-treating
Reasonable, measured care builds credibility. A client who tries home exercises, then a short course of physical therapy, followed by targeted injections only if needed, looks like a person focused on getting better. Someone who suddenly stacks aggressive treatments without clear indications invites scrutiny, especially if imaging does not line up. I do not discourage care that provides relief, but I ask clients to articulate why each escalation happened, and what benefit it brought.
The defense likes to argue that months of chiropractic visits or massage lack medical necessity. That argument weakens when treating physicians endorse them as part of a multi-modal plan, documented as improving function. On the other hand, a long stream of identical notes with check-the-box pain levels and little change can dilute the narrative. It helps to keep a brief journal of what activities you regained with each phase of care. That thread lets us show progress, not just attendance.
Prior surgeries and hardware: a special case
Metal implants and prior surgical sites arrive with built-in complexity. If you had a cervical fusion years before your crash, a new injury can stress adjacent levels. Radiologists may note adjacent segment disease. The defense will argue natural progression. The counter is to show that your pre-crash status involved stable imaging, low pain scores, and full function, then pin the new symptoms to the adjacent level change. Spine surgeons can be persuasive here, especially if they laid out these risks in earlier follow-ups.
For knee or shoulder cases, prior arthroscopies are common. A new meniscal tear or rotator cuff aggravation in an already operated joint requires a careful reading of operative reports and MRIs. Treating surgeons often document the difference in location or character of tears, which anchors causation to the new trauma. Do not rely on memory for these details. Obtain the old surgical photos and reports early.
The role of honesty, and how it wins
Nothing poisons a case faster than an omission that looks intentional. I have seen claims worth six figures evaporate because a plaintiff hid a prior workers’ compensation case that would not have hurt them if properly explained. Adjusters study social media and public records. Background checks reveal more than people expect. Your auto accident lawyer cannot protect you from surprises they do not know about.
This is not a sermon. It is strategy. Jurors forgive pain, not evasiveness. If you tell them about the prior motorcycle spill, then explain that you rehabbed, hiked on weekends, and coached soccer for three seasons before this crash, you sound like a person who meets problems head-on. That persona carries more weight than any expert.
A practical timeline that works
- Within the first two weeks, document all body regions that hurt, even if mildly, with a primary care or urgent care visit. Note work restrictions explicitly. Within the first month, begin conservative therapy if recommended, and keep notes about function. Obtain prior medical records going back at least five years for the affected body regions. By the three-month mark, reassess. If symptoms persist, consider advanced imaging and, if appropriate, a referral to a specialist. When you feel ready, return to scaled activities. Document what you can and cannot do. Avoid “toughing it out” in silence. Before providing any statement to an insurer, speak with a vehicle accident lawyer to align your history and protect your claim.
This is not a rigid checklist. Bodies heal in fits and starts. The point is to maintain a record that matches the reality you live.
Negotiation with adjusters who lean on the past
Claims adjusters have tiers of authority. The first offer often reflects a formula that discounts for preexisting conditions. It is not personal. It is a spreadsheet. Persuasion starts by reframing categories they already use. Medical specials are not just bills; they are a map of medical necessity with provider commentary. Lost wages are not just a letter from HR, but also a supervisor’s note about missed training or lost promotion windows. Pain and suffering is not a number plucked from air, but a pattern of disrupted routines, particularized and documented, that starts on a date certain.
When I see the phrase “preexisting condition” in an adjuster’s letter, I respond with concrete deltas: pain scores before and after, flights of stairs without stopping then and now, lifting capacity in pounds as recorded by a therapist, number of overtime shifts declined. Adjusters recognize deltas, because they map to risk at trial. If they insist on pegging the injury to natural degeneration, I invite them to explain why the plaintiff’s life changed on a Tuesday in March instead of the prior October when the MRI shows similar wear. Silence is common after that question.
Litigation as a last resort, not a threat
Filing suit is not about bluster. It is about access to tools. Subpoenas bring in old records that we can contextualize, not avoid. Depositions let us lock defense experts into narrow views that ignore lived impacts. Discovery gives structure to competing narratives. When the case involves complex prior injuries, litigation often clarifies more than it complicates. Many cases resolve after depositions of treating providers, once the defense hears nuanced causation opinions that do not fit the insurer’s initial caricature.
A car crash attorney prepares early for trial even when settlement seems likely. Trial readiness raises the quality of settlement. It also disciplines the case. Sloppy timelines and uncertain histories do not survive cross-examination. Preparation demands your participation. Answer calls. Review summaries. Correct errors. This is your story. A good injury lawyer is the editor, not the author.
Common myths that hurt good cases
Some clients believe talking about old pain will lower the value of their case. The opposite is usually true. Detailing a stable baseline creates contrast. Others think a small gap in care kills the claim. It rarely does if we explain the gap with real factors like childcare, scheduling delays, or temporary improvement. A frequent fear is that prior legal claims make you look litigious. Prior claims matter only if the injuries overlap and the prior outcome left you with significant ongoing issues. Even then, careful documentation can isolate what changed.
Another myth is that a high property damage estimate guarantees a high recovery. It does not. Damages turn on medical causation and human loss, not just blown bumpers. Conversely, low property damage is not a death sentence. Skilled car accident legal representation shifts focus from metal to muscle and nerve.
How to help your lawyer help you
Your participation is the spine of the case. Save appointment reminders, therapy home exercise sheets, and receipts for over-the-counter aids like braces or heat wraps. Keep a simple weekly note on function: how far you walked, whether you carried groceries, how many hours you slept. Tell your providers the truth about pain levels and limitations, even if you think they sound minor. Small details in medical notes make large differences at mediation.
If your job is physical, ask for light-duty options in writing. If none exist, get a note that clarifies restrictions. If you are a caregiver, document the help you needed. A short note from a neighbor who started mowing your lawn or driving your kids to practice is surprisingly persuasive. These items are not embellishments. They are the texture of life that jurors recognize as authentic.
Choosing the right advocate
Labels like auto accident attorney, automobile accident lawyer, motor vehicle accident lawyer, or road accident lawyer all point to the same core skill set. What matters is the lawyer’s track record with complex medical histories. Ask how they handle cases with prior surgeries. Ask whether they’ve tried a case where degenerative disc disease was front and center. Listen for specifics, not bravado. A personal injury lawyer who talks about timelines, deltas, and treating provider narratives is more likely to build a strong record.
Specialization helps when the case involves significant force, multi-vehicle crashes, or commercial defendants. A transportation accident lawyer familiar with data downloads from event recorders and professional driver logs can surface facts that shift liability arguments. Yet even in simple collisions, the strategy around prior injuries often makes the difference between a minimal settlement and a fair one.
A brief story that mirrors many
Several years ago, I represented a warehouse supervisor with a ten-year-old lumbar strain on his chart and intermittent chiropractic visits. A delivery van sideswiped his car at an intersection. The photos were underwhelming. He missed two days of work, then returned, stubborn and sore. Over six weeks, his symptoms shifted from general ache to targeted left-leg radiculopathy. An MRI showed a moderate L5-S1 herniation. The defense pointed to old notes about low back pain and argued normal progression.
We assembled a timeline: annual physicals noting normal gait, no neurologic deficits, no lost time from work for five years before the crash. Post crash, we charted missed overtime, therapy records showing positive straight-leg raise on the left, and a series of epidural injections with temporary but documented relief. His wife described the way he now rolled out of bed slowly and avoided their Saturday hikes. The treating physiatrist testified that the herniation correlated with new objective findings and that prior records lacked radicular complaints.
The case settled after depositions at a figure several times the initial offer. Nothing magical happened. We did not erase his prior history. We made it legible.
What “fair” looks like when prior injuries exist
Fair compensation accounts for the aggravation you will live with, not the clean slate you wish you had. That includes the reasonable cost of past medical care, likely future treatments if symptoms persist, documented lost wages or diminished earning capacity, and the non-economic losses that flow from specific limitations. A car collision lawyer should not promise miracles. They should promise fidelity to your reality.
If you had a fifteen-year history of intermittent shoulder pain that limited heavy lifting, and a new crash leaves you with constant pain and a surgery recommendation, the defense will argue for a discount. The right counter is not bluster; it is proof that your range of motion is measurably worse, your sleep is measurably disrupted, and your function is measurably limited compared to your documented baseline. That is what juries understand. That is what adjusters eventually price.
The quiet power of patience
These cases take time because bodies take time. Soft tissue injuries can declare themselves over months. Nerve irritation may ebb and return. If you rush to settle before the medical picture stabilizes, you sell uncertainty at a discount. A careful auto injury attorney paces negotiation with the medicine, not the calendar. When a defense adjuster senses that you and your car lawyer are willing to wait for clarity, offers often rise, because uncertainty cuts both ways.
Patience does not mean passivity. It means steady documentation, reasonable care choices, open communication with your legal team, and a shared tolerance for the slow rhythm of recovery. In the end, prior injuries do not mark you as broken. They mark you as human. The law recognizes that. With careful strategy, your claim can too.