Pre-Existing Conditions and Your Injury Claim: What Insurance Companies Don't Want You to Know

If you had a bad back, a prior knee injury, or any other pre-existing condition before your car accident, the insurance company handling your claim is almost certainly building a strategy around it right now. Insurers routinely use pre-existing conditions to argue that your current pain and treatment have nothing to do with the crash, even when the collision clearly made an old problem dramatically worse.

Indiana law does not let an insurer deny your claim simply because you weren't in perfect health before the wreck, and our personal injury attorneys at Wilson & Novak Law Offices know how to prove the difference between a condition you had and the harm the other driver caused.

How Insurers Use Pre-Existing Conditions to Minimize Your Claim

As soon as your claim file mentions a prior injury, an old MRI, or a chronic condition, expect the adjuster's strategy to shift. Rather than disputing that the crash happened, many insurers pivot to disputing that the crash caused your current pain at all. They'll pull years of medical records looking for any mention of back pain, joint problems, or prior treatment, then argue that your symptoms are simply the natural progression of an old condition rather than something the collision caused or worsened.

Some adjusters go further and request a broad, open-ended medical authorization that lets them dig through unrelated treatment history far beyond what's relevant to your current injury, hoping to find anything that can be stretched into a causation argument. This argument appeals to insurers because it doesn't require denying liability for the accident itself; instead, it only requires convincing you, or eventually a jury, that your injury isn't really new.

The Legal Difference Between a Pre-Existing Condition and an Aggravated Injury

Indiana law draws a distinction that insurers often try to blur: a defendant who aggravates an existing injury is liable for that aggravation, even if they aren't liable for the underlying condition itself. This principle, sometimes called the "eggshell plaintiff" rule, means a driver who rear-ends you isn't excused from paying for the herniated disc that resulted just because you already had mild degenerative changes in your spine before the crash.

Indiana courts have long recognized that a defendant takes a plaintiff as they find them; a perfectly healthy person and someone with a vulnerable pre-existing condition are owed the same duty of care, and you're entitled to compensation for the actual harm the crash caused, on top of whatever baseline condition you started with. The insurer's job is to make this distinction sound complicated; your attorney's job is to make it simple for an adjuster, judge, or jury.

How Independent Medical Examinations Factor Into These Disputes

Once a pre-existing condition becomes central to your claim, insurers and defense attorneys frequently request what's called an independent medical examination, or IME. In Indiana, these exams are governed by Indiana Trial Rule 35 , which allows a court to order an examination only when your physical condition is genuinely in dispute, and the requesting party shows good cause, and which entitles you to receive a copy of the examiner's full written report.

IME Doctors Aren't Neutral Parties

These exams aren't performed by a neutral party. The examining doctor is typically selected and paid by the insurance company, and conclusions often align closely with the insurer's litigation position. Knowing your rights under Trial Rule 35, including your right to the complete written report and to a clearly defined scope for the exam, helps prevent the IME from becoming a one-sided tool against your claim. If the report you receive seems to ignore documented changes in your condition since the crash, that gap itself can become useful evidence at trial.

When Pre-Existing Condition Arguments Become Unfair Claims Practices

There's a real difference between an insurer reasonably investigating a pre-existing condition and an insurer misusing one to avoid paying a legitimate claim. Indiana's Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, Indiana Code 27-4-1-4.5 , prohibits insurers from misrepresenting pertinent facts about your coverage, refusing to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation, or failing to attempt a prompt and fair settlement once liability is reasonably clear.

An insurer that cherry-picks a single old chiropractic note to deny an otherwise well-documented claim, or that refuses to even review your treating physician's opinion on causation, may be crossing from legitimate skepticism into a practice the state explicitly prohibits. Documenting these patterns can strengthen your position in settlement negotiations and, in some cases, support a separate complaint to the Indiana Department of Insurance.

Building Medical Evidence That Separates Old Injuries from New Harm

The strongest answer to a pre-existing condition argument is a medical record that clearly shows what changed after the crash. This starts with prompt treatment: gaps between the accident and your first medical visit give insurers room to argue that something else caused your symptoms.

From there, your treating physicians should document specific before-and-after comparisons, such as new imaging showing fresh damage, a measurable decline in range of motion, or pain that's qualitatively different from anything in your prior history. Functional comparisons matter just as much as imaging. If you could work a full shift, lift your children, or play in a weekly softball league before the crash and can no longer do any of those things afterward, that contrast often tells a more persuasive story to an adjuster or jury than medical terminology alone.

Asking your doctor directly whether the crash aggravated a pre-existing condition, and getting that opinion in writing, can also close off one of the insurer's easiest arguments before it's ever raised.

Don't Let an Old Injury Cost You a Fair Settlement

A pre-existing condition is not a free pass for the insurance company, and it should never be the reason you accept less than your claim is actually worth. Wilson & Novak Law Offices has spent more than 25 years building the medical and legal evidence that separates an old injury from new harm, and our attorneys' experience on the insurance defense side means we anticipate these arguments before the adjuster even raises them.

If an insurer is using your medical history against you, contact us for a free consultation to discuss how Indiana law protects your right to fair compensation, regardless of what your health looked like before the crash.

We handle personal injury claims throughout Northwest Indiana, including Crown Point , Chesterton , and Gary .