Pre-existing Medical Conditions do Not Preclude Recovery

A 45 year old man is involved in a car accident clearly caused by the defendant’s negligence (the defendant ran into the back of your car while stopped at a red light.) The impact is heavy and causes severe low back pain resulting in surgery two months later. Your diagnosis is herniated disk, likely due to degenerative arthritis. Moreover, when you were 20 years old you injured your lower back in a fall while ice skating. You sought medical treatment, including pain medication and 4 months of physical therapy. Does the earlier accident or arthritis preclude recovery in the current rear-end car accident case?

The answer is no. A basic tenet of injury law is that a defendant is responsible for the harm/injuries he causes. So long as you can prove that the recent car accident caused injury, you are entitled to fair and reasonable compensation. Your earlier accident/arthritis are only admissible into evidence if they contribute to the injuries claimed from the current car accident.

What does “contribute” mean? Did the accident 25 years ago result in a permanent problem in your lower back? Were you placed under permanent activity restrictions? Did you continue receiving medical treatment for the earlier accident as of the time of the car accident? Were you still taking pain medications? Or, did you last receive medical treatment years and years earlier for the rear-end car accident?

The law makes specific allowance for aggravation of a pre-existing condition. Not only does the earlier accident and/or the arthritis not preclude recovery from the current car accident case, it is the defendant’s burden to prove a causal relationship between the earlier accident or condition and the injuries claimed in the car accident case. Absent such proof – usually in the form of a doctor hired by the defendant to give so called expert testimony – there cannot even be mention of the earlier accident or arthritic condition.

The aging process for most people results in arthritis in your spine, knee, ankle and/or wrist joints. Many times you are not even aware that you have arthritis. You have never been diagnosed with it, you’ve received no treatment for it, it does not affect your work activities and it does not effect your social or recreational activities. In such a context the arthritis would be a purely incidental finding, and would neither preclude, nor even limit the compensation to which you would be entitled from the rear-end car accident case.

The basic issue here is one of fairness: A defendant should have to pay for damages that his negligence causes, but no more. That a person has a pre-existing “condition” that in no way affects his life, should not afford a negligent defendant any benefit. Correspondingly, if a person has an injury from an earlier accident or a “condition” which affects his work or social/recreational activities, it would be unfair to force a defendant to pay for injuries not caused by the defendant’s negligence. Thus, the basic inquiry is on the impact, if any, of a pre-existing condition, which alone, will not effect the value of your case.

• Español