How Are Aggravation Of Prior Injuries Handled

Name

Email*

Phone*

Message*

Get My Free Case Review

Confidential Case Review • No Fee Unless We Win

Aggravation of a pre-existing condition is a common, and frustrating, issue in personal injury cases. California law doesn’t automatically disqualify you from recovery simply because you had a prior injury. Instead, the legal doctrine of the “thin skull rule” applies. This means the at-fault party is responsible for the full extent of your injuries, even if they were worsened by a pre-existing vulnerability. The insurance company’s job isn’t to debate your past; it’s to make you whole after their client caused the new injury.

However, proving the aggravation is directly linked to the accident is critical. You will need to demonstrate that the accident caused a substantial change in your condition. This isn’t about simply having an existing problem; it’s about showing the accident made a previously manageable condition significantly worse.

For over 13 years, I’ve represented clients throughout San Diego who have found themselves in this exact situation. Having been trained by former insurance defense attorneys, I intimately understand how these companies evaluate claims and attempt to devalue or deny legitimate injuries. They’re experts at exploiting pre-existing conditions to minimize their payouts. They look for any way to argue that your current pain isn’t the result of the accident but rather a continuation of a prior problem.

What evidence is most effective in proving aggravation of a pre-existing condition?

Document everything. This is where many claims fall apart. It’s not enough to say the accident worsened your back pain—you need to prove it. Start with your medical records. A clear timeline is vital, showcasing your condition before the accident, the immediate aftermath of the collision, and the subsequent progression of your symptoms. Focus on any new complaints or significant increases in pain levels after the accident.

Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are often requested by the insurance company. Be cautious during these exams. Remember, the doctor is being paid by the insurance company to offer a specific opinion, often challenging the extent of your injuries. While you are generally obligated to attend under California law, CCP § 2032.220, it’s crucial to be represented by counsel and understand your rights.

Also, detailed records of your daily activities—or limitations thereof—are helpful. Keep a pain journal outlining your pain levels, what exacerbates it, and how it impacts your ability to work, sleep, or perform everyday tasks. Testimony from friends and family members regarding changes in your condition post-accident can also be powerful.

How does comparative fault apply when a pre-existing condition is involved?

California follows a ‘pure’ comparative fault system. This means you can recover damages even if you were partially at fault for the accident. However, your recovery will be reduced by your percentage of fault. Insurance adjusters frequently attempt to argue that your pre-existing condition constitutes a percentage of fault, claiming you were more susceptible to injury because of your prior history.

For instance, if you are found to be 20% at fault due to your pre-existing condition and your total damages are $100,000, you would only recover $80,000. It’s critical to aggressively counter this argument with strong evidence demonstrating the accident was the primary cause of the aggravation, not simply an exacerbation of a long-standing issue. California Civil Code Section Civ. Code § 1714 governs these assessments.

We often see adjusters misinterpret medical records or rely on IME reports to assign an arbitrary percentage of fault. A skilled attorney can challenge these interpretations and present a compelling case for a more accurate assessment of liability.

What if I have limited medical insurance coverage?

Limited medical coverage can complicate matters, but it doesn’t automatically prevent you from pursuing a claim. If your treatment is covered under a medical lien arrangement, the full reasonable value of those services can still be recovered. However, the Howell v. Hamilton Meats Rule dictates that plaintiffs are only entitled to recover the amount actually paid or incurred for medical services—not the sticker price.

This means the insurance company can challenge the reasonableness of the lien amounts and potentially reduce your recovery. It is essential to have a clear understanding of your medical bills and lien agreements, and to ensure that your attorney has experience negotiating with medical providers to secure favorable terms. This also underscores the importance of diligent documentation to establish the necessity of the medical treatment you’ve received.

Can I recover non-economic damages (pain and suffering) for aggravation of a pre-existing condition?

Yes, you can recover non-economic damages like pain and suffering for aggravation of a pre-existing condition, but there are caveats. Proposition 213 limits these damages in certain cases, particularly when an uninsured driver is at fault. Under Civil Code § 3333.4, if the driver was uninsured, you may be barred from recovering these damages even if they were 100% at fault.

However, if the at-fault driver was insured, or if they were driving under the influence, these limitations do not apply. It’s critical to determine the insurance status of the at-fault driver and assess whether Proposition 213 will impact your ability to recover non-economic damages. Even with these limitations, you may still be able to recover economic damages like medical bills, lost wages, and property damage.

Remember, navigating these legal complexities requires experienced counsel. The insurance company will likely employ various tactics to minimize their liability, especially when a pre-existing condition is involved. Don’t let them dictate the outcome of your case.

What role does the police report play in these situations?

The police report is an important piece of evidence, but it is not the final word. It establishes the basic facts of the accident—date, time, location, and parties involved—but it may not accurately reflect the extent of your injuries or the full impact of the collision. The report’s determination of fault is also not binding.

The insurance company will review the police report as part of their investigation, but they will also conduct their own assessment of the facts and evidence. It’s critical to gather your own evidence—medical records, witness statements, photographs—to counter any discrepancies or inaccuracies in the police report. A thorough investigation by your attorney can uncover additional evidence that supports your claim and strengthens your position.