Commercial carriers and their insurers know the playbook. When a crash happens and the injuries look serious, the defense often pivots to a familiar refrain: the plaintiff was already hurt. Back pain from an old job, a previous fender bender, a degenerative disc on an MRI, a gym injury logged in a primary care note. The argument is rarely that simple, and it rarely matches the lived reality of a client who was functioning, working, and sleeping through the night before a fully loaded tractor-trailer changed everything. A seasoned truck accident lawyer knows how to meet that argument with facts, medicine, and narrative, and how to do it without overreaching.
This work starts long before a deposition and often before a demand letter. It involves investigation, medical mapping, and careful testimony prep. It also requires judgment about what to concede, what to contest, and how to explain common human conditions in a way jurors accept. The law allows recovery when a negligent act aggravates a pre-existing condition. The challenge lies in proving the degree of aggravation and separating it from the noise an insurer will amplify.
Why insurers lean on the pre-existing defense
The defense strategy has three practical goals: limit causation, shrink damages, and attack credibility. If the injuries were already there, the crash looks less harmful and the case less valuable. If a plaintiff did not volunteer an old injury on intake or gave a fuzzy timeline, the defense reframes it as dishonesty rather than poor memory. These cases often turn on subtle distinctions. An active 52-year-old with age-related cervical spondylosis can be asymptomatic for years, then develop radiculopathy after a rear underride. The defense will argue the disc looked the same before and after. A truck accident attorney’s job is to explain that imaging tells only part of the story, and symptoms fill in the gaps.
Insurers also favor pre-existing narratives because they create uncertainty. Uncertainty depresses settlement value. Faced with the cost and risk of proving medical causation, some plaintiffs take a discount. The remedy is thorough preparation, early.
The first hours and days: preserving the record that will matter later
The quality of a causation case often hinges on what happens in the first week. After a violent collision with a Class 8 truck, nearly everyone experiences adrenaline and shock. Pain can be delayed. A person might tell EMTs they are “okay” at the scene, then wake up the next morning barely able to lift an arm. Defense lawyers seize on any initial understatement.
A careful truck accident lawyer triages three immediate tasks. First, secure all electronic data that speaks to crash mechanics, from ECM downloads to ELD logs to dashcam video. The magnitude and direction of force matter when explaining new symptoms on top of old anatomy. Second, steer the client into appropriate medical care, not just for treatment but for precise documentation. Emergency rooms are designed to rule out life threats, not to capture the nuance of exacerbated conditions. Prompt referrals to specialists who document baseline, change, and progression create the bedrock of causation. Third, interview family or coworkers quickly. Their observations about function the week before and after the crash provide vivid contrast that medical records alone cannot supply.
Pre-existing conditions by name, not by myth
The phrase “pre-existing injury” masquerades as a monolith. In practice, it spans a spectrum, and the defense relies on conflation. A lawyer with experience in these cases breaks it apart, condition by condition.
Degenerative disc disease. Nearly everyone over 40 has some degree of disc dehydration or bulging on MRI. It is as common as wrinkles and just as variable in impact. Radiology reports use terms like “degenerative changes” that sound damning to laypeople. The counter is not to deny degeneration but to distinguish between structural change and symptomatic injury. A disc can be degenerated, then become acutely herniated with nerve impingement after trauma, producing new radiating pain, numbness, or weakness. That change appears not just in images, but in clinical tests, EMG findings, and patient-reported function.
Prior sprains or strains. Soft tissue injuries heal, but often incompletely. A person with a resolved lumbar strain can return to normal activity with zero limitations, then be knocked back into spasm and restricted range after a high-energy collision. Defense experts will point to older physical therapy notes and say the plaintiff has a “chronic pain syndrome.” A methodical attorney will track pain scores, activity level, and work status across time, showing stability pre-crash and a step change post-crash.
Arthritis. Osteoarthritis is ubiquitous in knees, hips, and shoulders. Mistaking age-related wear for causation is a common trap. The legal standard is not whether tissue had prior wear, but whether the crash worsened the condition or accelerated the need for invasive care. Many orthopedic surgeons are candid about this: a patient who might have needed a knee replacement in ten years often needs it in two after blunt trauma. Insurance counsel prefers to ignore acceleration. A good lawyer anchors acceleration with surgeon testimony, pre-injury radiographs if available, and performance metrics like walking distance or timed up-and-go tests.
Prior concussions or migraines. Head injuries invite skepticism. Clients with a history of migraines can develop post-concussive syndrome after a sudden deceleration, with cognitive deficits that do not map neatly onto imaging. The proof is not a single scan but neuropsychological testing over time, coupled with occupational impact, such as error rates or missed deadlines compared to pre-crash evaluations. Defense neurologists often argue malingering when test results are inconsistent. That requires careful selection of a credible examiner and attention to effort measures.
Pre-accident mental health conditions. Anxiety or depression can coexist with physical injury. After a traumatic truck crash, those conditions often intensify. The defense may suggest that all current impairment arises from psychological factors. The response is to respect the role of mental health, not deny it, and demonstrate how physical pain, sleep https://sergiofjrr795.wpsuo.com/how-to-document-evidence-after-a-car-accident-tips-from-an-accident-lawyer-1 disruption, and lost function feed into worsened mood. A clean chain of referrals, consistent therapy attendance, and smart, measured use of pharmacology records help jurors understand the interplay without dismissing it.
Building the medical timeline that a jury can hold
In cases tangled by medical history, chronology is your friend. A linear, plain-language timeline that tracks the client’s function, symptoms, and treatment before and after the collision converts a pile of records into a digestible story. It should not be a data dump. It should read like a life, with entries that mean something.
The most persuasive timelines carry three threads. First, functioning: what the person did on a normal day before the crash compared to after. That includes job tasks, chores, exercise, and hobbies. Second, symptoms: frequency, intensity, and character, noting changes like new radicular patterns or headaches with photophobia. Third, treatment: who saw the client, what they found, and why they changed course. When a treating orthopedist decides to order a microdiscectomy because conservative care failed, that decision and the failure preceding it matter more than a radiologist’s adjective.
Anchoring the timeline to corroborating witnesses strengthens it. A supervisor confirming that a truck tech was climbing ladders and carrying toolboxes pre-crash, then moved to light duty post-crash, can matter as much as a doctor’s note. Family members who watched sleep become fragmented after the wreck can explain morning irritability and why relationships got strained.
When imaging cuts both ways
Imaging can be boon or trap. MRIs often show pre-existing degeneration, and jurors may equate degeneration with inevitability. The task is to teach, not spin. That begins with the radiologist. Some radiologists read conservatively and favor the word “degenerative.” Some note traumatic changes like Modic endplate shifts, annular tears, or bone marrow edema. Where possible, a truck accident lawyer prefers treating surgeons who can bridge imaging with clinical presentation. Surgeons operate on people, not pictures.
Trauma can also make latent findings obvious. A small, asymptomatic rotator cuff tear on the dominant arm might become functionally crippling after a violent tug on the shoulder harness. The follow-up MRI looks similar but not identical. The testimony should stick to mechanistic, understandable points. Explain the force path through a belt, show how a cuff resists that force, then articulate why the tear became symptomatic now. Jurors respect honest limits. Overclaiming that a tear emerged from nothing, when the images show otherwise, invites backlash.
The eggshell skull and aggravation, in practice
Two doctrines carry much of the weight in these fights. The eggshell skull rule says you take the plaintiff as you find them. If someone is vulnerable and is hurt more severely than a hardier person because of that vulnerability, the defendant is still responsible. The aggravation rule permits damages for worsening of a prior condition. These are not slogans, they are instructions jurors hear from the judge.
Translating those concepts into concrete proof is where the craft lies. If a client had mild, infrequent lower back pain for years, took ibuprofen twice a month, and had never missed work, then after the crash needs daily medication, weekly therapy, and intermittent epidural steroid injections, the difference is compensable. A trier of fact needs to see the before and after side by side. Quantify it. How many missed shifts? How many nights awake? How many miles cut from a regular walk? An experienced truck accident attorney resists the urge to handwave. Numbers help.
Deposition strategy: precision and humility
Depositions are where pre-existing narratives often set. Defense counsel will probe every old complaint. The worst answer is a blithe “No, never” followed by a record that shows otherwise. Preparation solves this. The client should review their own medical history with counsel beforehand, not to memorize a script, but to refresh memory and avoid absolute statements.
Precision beats defensiveness. “I had soreness after mowing the lawn a few times a year. I took over-the-counter ibuprofen, and it passed by the next morning. Since the crash, it is daily, and it radiates into my left leg. That never happened before.” That kind of answer concedes reality while drawing a sharp line around what changed. Exaggeration invites impeachment. Understatement invites the same. Humility protects credibility. It is acceptable to say “I don’t remember” if the witness truly does not, but it is far better to tie uncertainty to documentation: “I don’t recall the exact date, but I believe my primary care visit in spring 2021 would have that note.”
Choosing and using experts like a scalpel
Not every case needs a lineup of experts. Some do. The selection matters more than the number. A treating physician typically carries more weight than a paid expert because they have skin in the game and know the patient. If a treating orthopedist can articulate aggravation clearly, that may be enough. When the record is messy or the defense leans hard on prior imaging, a biomechanical engineer, a neuroradiologist, or a physiatrist can help.
Good experts teach. They avoid jargon. They admit limits. A neuroradiologist who explains that a disc protrusion abutting a nerve root without deforming it can still be symptomatic, especially in the context of new straight-leg raise findings, empowers jurors to connect dots. A biomechanical expert who correlates delta-v, occupant posture, and belt loading with plausible injury mechanisms gives context the defense would prefer to strip away.
Cost is real. Expert fees can run from four to six figures by trial. A lawyer who overstaffs a case drives up case expenses and pressures settlement. The trick is to identify the pivot points and staff only those. If the real battle is whether a crash aggravated a knee, a straight-talking orthopedist and a physical therapist may do more work than a roster of PhDs.
The role of honesty about prior care
Clients sometimes hide prior conditions out of fear that disclosure will tank their case. That instinct is understandable and dangerous. The defense will get the records. HIPAA releases, subpoenas, and broad discovery capture years of care history. Omissions haunt credibility and can poison a strong causation story.
A truck accident lawyer addresses this head-on. During intake, ask about everything: sports injuries, work comp claims, VA care, occupational physicals, urgent care visits, even chiropractic adjustments paid in cash. Not to exclude the case, but to prepare it honestly. If there was a prior car crash with lingering neck tightness, better to own it early and draw the line between stiffness managed with stretches and post-crash radicular pain that wakes the client at 3 a.m. Jurors forgive prior injuries. They do not forgive perceived deception.
Life care planning when old and new overlap
Serious cases involve future care. When pre-existing conditions exist, projecting future costs becomes delicate. A life care planner who attributes every future expense to the truck crash will invite attack. The way through is apportionment grounded in evidence. If a client had mild knee osteoarthritis likely to require a total knee arthroplasty at age 70, and now at 61 needs it within two years, the planner should explain the acceleration and attribute only the acceleration costs to the crash. That honesty increases credibility across the entire plan.
Future wage loss follows similar lines. If a union carpenter with a prior shoulder injury worked full duty for five years, then after the crash cannot pass a lift test and is on permanent restrictions, the defense will argue he was on the edge anyway. Work with vocational experts who interview supervisors, review actual job descriptions, and analyze transferable skills. Show how the collision, not just the calendar, moved the person from the trades to a lower-paying, sedentary role.
Using the trucking case itself to bolster causation
Causation does not live only in medical charts. It also lives in the nature of the crash. Human bodies absorb forces differently based on angles, speeds, and vehicle dynamics. The shape of property damage, the crush measurements, and the ECM data often support the medical story. A sideswipe at low speed might not plausibly produce a large herniation, but a lane-change impact that shoves a small SUV under the trailer bumper can. When you tie a clear FMCSA hours-of-service violation to a fatigued driver drifting across lines, then overlay that with an accident reconstruction showing a lateral deceleration spike, the medical symptoms suddenly feel less mysterious.
The reverse matters too. If the mechanics are low energy, a lawyer should not oversell. There are honest low-speed crashes that trigger serious symptoms in vulnerable people. Sell the vulnerability and the known aggravation doctrine, not a physics tale that does not fit. Jurors smell mismatch.
Records that do the talking
Medical records are not written for trial, but they can be guided. Encourage clients to describe their symptoms clearly at every visit. “Back pain” is different from “low back pain radiating to left calf with tingling.” “Stiffness” is different from “reduced range of motion with pain at 45 degrees of flexion.” Clinicians appreciate precision, and precise notes become persuasive later.
Work with providers willing to write a short causation letter when warranted. The best letters are narrow and specific. “Given Ms. Chen’s history of intermittent low back pain managed with home exercises and no radicular symptoms prior to April 2, 2024, and her new onset of left L5 distribution numbness and weakness beginning immediately after the collision on that date, it is my opinion within a reasonable degree of medical probability that the collision aggravated her underlying degenerative disc disease and caused her current radiculopathy.” That reads more credibly than a generic “the crash caused all injuries” statement.
When surveillance and social media complicate the story
Insurers often hire investigators. A few minutes of video showing a plaintiff carrying groceries becomes a cudgel. The answer is not paranoia, but context. People living with chronic pain have good days and bad days. They push through simple tasks and pay for it later. Prepare clients to explain that without sounding rehearsed. Advise them to avoid performative social media. A photo at a nephew’s birthday means little by itself, but paired with a claim of total incapacity it can be twisted. Consistency across medical reports and daily life protects credibility.
Settlement posture shaped by causation risk
Pre-existing arguments create valuation bands. A case that might sit in the mid six figures absent a history could settle for less if causation is muddy. You cannot wish that away. A prudent truck accident attorney tests themes through focus groups before trial. If laypeople consistently balk at certain claims, consider narrowing them. Concede what is weak to protect what is strong. Demand letters that acknowledge prior issues while confidently framing aggravation often land better with experienced adjusters than chest-thumping denials of the obvious.
Mediation requires similar calibration. Bring visual aids that make chronology intuitive. A one-page chart showing pre-crash function, post-crash decline, and key medical milestones can move a mediator. High-low agreements sometimes make sense when both sides see real exposure. The “high” protects the client from an unfairly skeptical jury, and the “low” protects the defense from a runaway verdict.
Trial: telling a story people recognize as true
At trial, the jurors you most need are fair skeptics. They worry about lawsuits and malingering. They also know someone whose aches from high school football never mattered until a bad accident. Speak to that experience. Use the defense’s own records to show the delta. “Yes, Mr. Vega reported back stiffness in 2019. He missed zero days of work that year. After the crash, he missed 46. That is not the same problem.”
Resist the urge to sanitize. Admit what is tough. “There is arthritis in that knee. He was going to need surgery someday. This crash made someday arrive eight to ten years early.” Jurors reward candor. Defense experts who overplay their hand, dismiss symptoms, or ignore treating physicians often lose the room. Cross-examination should be surgical. Pin them to literature where possible, or to their own prior testimony if they have a public track record. Keep the theme simple: before and after.
Closing arguments should not drown in medical detail. Return to function, dignity, and fairness. The law allows recovery for aggravation. The numbers you ask for should align with the evidence, not leap beyond it. When damages reflect the expected course of future care, the likely work limitations, and the human cost of pain that was once occasional and is now constant, the defense’s pre-existing drumbeat fades.
Practical steps clients can take with counsel to strengthen their case
- Be exhaustive about your medical history with your lawyer, including old injuries, minor urgent care visits, and over-the-counter routines. Surprises later hurt credibility. Follow through with recommended care, and describe symptoms specifically at each visit. Vague complaints read as vague injuries. Keep a simple symptom and function journal for the first months after the crash, noting activities you cannot do or must modify. Be thoughtful about social media and daily activities that can be misconstrued, and be ready to explain good-day footage within the context of overall limitations. Gather witnesses from work and home who can testify to your pre-crash baseline and the changes they observed right after.
The larger context: trucking cases are different
The pre-existing defense shows up in every personal injury case, but the stakes and dynamics in trucking cases differ. The forces are higher, the regulations thicker, and the defendants more sophisticated. Hours-of-service violations, negligent hiring, and poor maintenance can widen the aperture beyond a simple negligence claim. Juries often respond to systemic failures. When you prove a carrier pushed a fatigued driver onto the road, the story of why your client’s old aches turned into disabling pain becomes more compelling. That does not replace medical proof, but it supports it.
Truck insurers also marshal resources quickly. Rapid response teams are on scene within hours. They preserve their evidence, not yours. A plaintiff’s lawyer who understands this environment sends spoilation letters immediately, hires the right reconstructionist early, and frames the medical story with the physics at hand.
The bottom line: credible nuance wins
Countering claims of pre-existing injuries is not a magic trick. It is craft. It blends early investigation, precise medical work, honest storytelling, and disciplined advocacy. The goal is not to erase a client’s past, but to map it against the shock of a heavy vehicle crash and show what changed, by how much, and why it matters.
A truck accident lawyer who does this well keeps jurors grounded in common sense. People age. Bodies wear. Most of us carry small pains without complaint. When a negligent truck driver knocks that fragile balance out of alignment, the law recognizes the difference. Real cases turn on that difference, and credible proof beats slogans every time.