The insurance adjuster's voice carries a tone of certainty as they explain why your car accident claim is worth significantly less than you thought. They point to your medical history—that old back injury from years ago, the migraines you've managed for decades—and suggest these pre-existing conditions are the real cause of your current pain and limitations.
Virginia insurance companies often use pre-existing medical conditions as a weapon to reduce or deny legitimate claims. Our Richmond car accident lawyer understands how these tactics can leave accident victims feeling defeated, particularly when dealing with traumatic brain injuries that may worsen existing neurological conditions.
Understanding the Pre-Existing Conditions Defense Strategy
Insurance companies often try to attribute current injuries to pre-existing medical conditions. This defense strategy has become increasingly common as insurers seek to reduce their financial exposure in personal injury claims.
How Insurance Companies Investigate Medical History
Insurance investigators conduct thorough reviews of medical records, sometimes going back years to identify any previous injuries, treatments, or diagnostic findings. They then hire medical professionals to review these records and provide opinions that support their position.
Medical record requests often extend far beyond what seems reasonable for the current claim. Insurance companies may demand records from every healthcare provider an accident victim has seen for years, hoping to uncover any condition they can use to their advantage.
Arguments Insurance Companies Make
Suppose a 45-year-old teacher suffered a concussion in a rear-end collision. Her medical history shows she sought treatment for occasional headaches five years earlier. The insurance company seizes on this information, arguing that her current severe headaches, memory problems, and cognitive difficulties stem from her pre-existing headache condition rather than the traumatic brain injury sustained in the car accident.
Insurance adjusters present this defense even when the connection between old and new conditions is tenuous at best. They count on accident victims lacking the medical knowledge to challenge these assertions or the financial resources to fight back with proper legal representation.
Virginia's Eggshell Skull Doctrine Protection
Virginia law provides strong protection for victims through the eggshell plaintiff doctrine. Also called the eggshell skull rule, the law holds negligent parties fully responsible, even when consequences are more severe due to the pre-existing vulnerabilities. Defendants cannot escape liability simply because the victim was more susceptible to injury than the average person.
Physical Conditions
Under Virginia law, a defendant takes their victim as they find them, regardless of any underlying medical conditions that might make the victim more vulnerable to serious injury.
Imagine a construction worker who previously herniated a disc at work but returned to full-duty employment after treatment. The impact from a car accident with a distracted driver aggravates his old injury and causes new disc herniations requiring surgery.
Based on Virginia's eggshell plaintiff doctrine, the at-fault driver's insurance company cannot reduce compensation by claiming his pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury.
Psychological Vulnerability
The doctrine also encompasses pre-existing psychological vulnerabilities. Virginia TBI attorneys often invoke this protection when clients with prior mental health conditions develop more severe psychological symptoms following traumatic brain injuries.
Psychological pre-existing conditions don't diminish a negligent party's responsibility for the full scope of harm their actions cause. This protection is particularly important in traumatic brain injury cases, as pre-existing mental health conditions can significantly worsen with severe head trauma.
Effective Counter-Strategies for the Pre-Existing Conditions Defense
Our experienced Virginia personal injury attorneys employ proven tactics to protect our clients' rights to full compensation.
Medical Documentation and Expert Testimony
Medical documentation forms the core foundation of any successful counter-strategy. Comprehensive medical records can clearly distinguish between pre-existing conditions and new injuries. Medical experts review records, examine accident victims, and provide detailed opinions about the relationship between the accident and current symptoms.
Functional Capacity Comparisons
Functional capacity comparisons focus on what the victim could do before the collision compared to their current limitations. If someone with pre-existing conditions maintained full employment and an active lifestyle before the accident but cannot work or enjoy previous activities afterward, this functional decline supports their injury claim.
Build a Strong Legal Case Against Insurance Tactics
Experienced Virginia personal injury lawyers can counter insurance tactics with thorough case preparation and aggressive advocacy that addresses both the medical aspects of the claim and the insurance company's specific arguments about pre-existing conditions.
Evidence Preservation and Documentation
Preserving evidence is vital, including comprehensive medical documentation that establishes baseline conditions and tracks changes following the accident. The timing and nature of post-accident medical treatment also provide important evidence. When accident victims immediately seek medical care for symptoms that weren't present or were much milder before the collision, this pattern supports their claim that the accident caused new injuries.
Strategic Use of Virginia Law
Virginia's contributory negligence law, while harsh in some contexts, actually provides advantages when fighting pre-existing conditions defenses. Under Virginia Code § 8.01-58, the focus remains on whether the defendant's negligence caused injury, not on the victim's pre-existing vulnerabilities.
Virginia's statute of limitations for personal injury creates urgency in building a strong case against pre-existing conditions defenses. The two-year limitation period requires prompt action to gather evidence and prepare for insurance company challenges based on medical history.