I think that this is another area where not only doctors, but patients themselves don’t really understand the differences when it comes to that pre-existing. So they think, Hey, you know what? I had back pain already.
Now it’s worse from the accident, but I’m not going to worry about this. I’m not getting an attorney. Or the doctor doesn’t know that just because they had an issue with their lumbar spine prior, and now they’re in worst pain.
It’s all about describing the difference. It’s okay if someone has a pre-existing. Let’s say a grade one spawned below at L three after the accident. If it’s a grade two, now they have radiating pain and loss of feeling from their knee down on the left side, just compare and contrast. Show the difference because that’s clearly different. If they were an eight out of 10 before, and then they got an accident now there a 10 out of 10, that’s still a difference.
It’s all about just talking about that difference.
And that’s the law in Illinois. At least the law is really clear.
Insurance companies love to use pre-existing conditions as a defense because the average person looks at it and says pre-existing, that existed before the crash, it’s not their fault.
But the law is really clear and the law says you cannot limit the recovery of a plaintiff and injured person because their injury was caused by a pre-existing condition or it was the aggravation of a pre-existing condition made worse.
So because the law is the law, anytime I have a jury trial, I get in front of the jurors and I’ve waved that jury instruction around. And I say to them, this is the law. And I understand you guys might think that it happened before the crash. It did. It was pre-existing. But it’s worse. And here in the chart or the 35 times, I can point to that it’s documented that it’s worse.
And without that documentation, your patient loses. And it’s just simple stuff to document. It really is.