One of the most common arguments insurance companies make in personal injury cases is that the injured person’s problems existed before the accident. Adjusters and defense lawyers frequently point to prior medical records, imaging studies, or diagnostic labels like “degenerative” and argue that a motor vehicle crash did not really cause harm.
In Kansas and Missouri, this argument is often misleading—and legally incorrect. This legal reality is central to whether someone can win an injury case with a pre-existing condition in Kansas or Missouri.
Having a pre-existing condition does not prevent you from recovering compensation after an injury-causing accident. In fact, many successful injury cases involve people with prior medical histories whose conditions were made worse, accelerated, or permanently aggravated by trauma.
Insurance companies rely on the assumption that jurors will believe that “pre-existing” means “not their fault.” The law says otherwise.
The Law Takes the Victim as They Are
Kansas and Missouri both follow a long-standing legal principle sometimes referred to as the “eggshell plaintiff” rule. In practical terms, this rule means that the person who caused the crash takes the injured person exactly as they find them.
The law does not require that someone be perfectly healthy before an accident. It only requires proof that the crash caused additional harm.
If an accident aggravates, accelerates, or worsens a pre-existing condition, the at-fault party is legally responsible for the harm they caused—even if another person without that condition might have suffered less severe injuries.
This principle recognizes a basic truth: people come into accidents with different bodies, histories, and vulnerabilities. The law protects real people, not idealized versions of health.
What Counts as an Aggravation of a Pre-Existing Condition?
Aggravation can take many forms, and it often shows up in subtle but meaningful ways.
Common examples include:
- Degenerative disc disease that existed silently for years but became painful and limiting after a crash
- Prior neck or back injuries that were stable and manageable until trauma caused new symptoms
- Arthritis that became significantly more painful or disabling following impact
- Chronic conditions that worsened in severity, frequency, or treatment needs after an accident
In these cases, the injury is not the existence of the condition itself. The injury is the change caused by the accident.
Courts and juries focus on what was different before versus after the collision: pain levels, functional limitations, medical treatment, and quality of life.
Contact our Kansas city personal injury lawyers now.
A Real-World Example: The Chester Harvey Case in Johnson County, Kansas
This legal principle is not theoretical. It plays out in real courtrooms.
In Johnson County, Kansas, Foster Wallace Personal Injury Lawyers tried the case of Chester Harvey. Mr. Harvey had documented pre-existing spinal conditions before a motor vehicle collision. The insurance company relied heavily on those records, arguing that his symptoms were unrelated to the crash and simply the result of degeneration.
At trial, the defense presented expert testimony claiming the injuries were pre-existing and inevitable. But the evidence told a different story.
Before the wreck, Mr. Harvey functioned independently and managed his condition. After the crash, his symptoms worsened, his physical limitations increased, and his need for treatment changed dramatically.
Through careful presentation of medical records, testimony, and cross-examination, the jury learned a critical truth: even the defense’s own expert had to concede that trauma can aggravate or accelerate degenerative conditions.
The jury rejected the insurance company’s attempt to avoid responsibility and returned a verdict in Mr. Harvey’s favor. The outcome reflected how Kansas law actually works—focusing on whether the crash caused a meaningful change, not whether a condition existed before.
How Insurance Companies Defend Pre-Existing Condition Claims
Insurance companies follow a familiar playbook in these cases.
They often argue:
- Imaging shows “degeneration,” not trauma
- Symptoms were inevitable due to age or prior history
- Treatment would have happened eventually
- The accident was too minor to cause harm
These arguments frequently ignore how people actually live.
Medical imaging alone does not measure pain, function, or quality of life. Many people have abnormal imaging findings and live without symptoms. What matters is not what existed on an MRI, but what the crash changed in real life.
Why Function Matters More Than Labels
In pre-existing condition cases, function is often the most powerful evidence.
Jurors care about practical questions:
- Could the person work before the crash?
- Could they exercise, travel, or care for family?
- What could they do before that they cannot do now?
When an accident changes daily life in meaningful ways, the law allows compensation for that loss.
Why Timing and Consistency Matter
Prompt medical care and consistent reporting are critical in aggravation cases.
Delays in treatment give insurance companies room to argue that symptoms are unrelated. Gaps in care can be mischaracterized as recovery. Inconsistent histories can undermine credibility.
Strong cases show:
- Prompt medical evaluation
- Consistent symptom reporting
- Clear documentation of worsening after the crash
Honesty Is Essential
One of the biggest mistakes injured people make is trying to hide prior conditions. That approach almost always backfires.
Jurors expect honesty. They understand that most adults have medical histories. What they reject is evasion.
Successful cases address pre-existing conditions directly:
- What existed before
- How the person functioned before
- What changed after the accident
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I recover compensation if I had prior injuries?
Yes. Kansas and Missouri law allow recovery when an accident worsens a pre-existing condition.
Does degeneration defeat my claim?
No. Degenerative findings do not bar recovery if the crash caused new or worse symptoms.
What if the insurance company says it was already there?
That argument fails when evidence shows the accident caused a meaningful change.
Speak With Foster Wallace Personal Injury Lawyers About Winning a Kansas or Missouri Injury Case With a Pre-Existing Condition
If an insurance company is blaming your injuries on a pre-existing condition, experienced legal guidance matters. It is possible to win an injury case with a pre-existing condition in Kansas or Missouri. However, these cases require careful medical analysis, strategic presentation, and a willingness to challenge insurance experts.
Foster Wallace Personal Injury Lawyers represent injury victims throughout Kansas and Missouri and have successfully tried aggravation cases—including those involving prior spinal conditions—to verdict. Reach out to us today.
