Car Insurance
If you’ve been hurt in a Long Island car accident, one of the first things you’re trying to figure out is simple: do I have a case?
In New York, the answer usually comes down to two things. Who caused the crash, and how serious are the injuries. But there’s a third issue that comes up more often than people expect, especially once the insurance company gets involved: your medical history.
If you’ve ever had a prior injury, especially to the same body part, you can almost guarantee the defense is going to focus on it. They’re not just going to bring it up. They’re going to build their entire story around it.
That doesn’t mean your case is weak. It just means the case has to be handled carefully, and the story has to be told the right way.
Let’s break it down.
Free Consultation
If you’ve been hurt in a car accident and a pre-existing condition is being used against you, Palermo Law can help. Contact us for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at any of our offices across Long Island.
Before we even get to injuries, we have to talk about fault.
New York uses what’s called a pure comparative fault system. In plain English, that means more than one person can share responsibility for an accident, and each person is assigned a percentage.
So, if a case is worth $100,000 but a jury says you were 20% at fault, your recovery drops to $80,000.
Why does that matter here? Because the insurance company rarely sticks to just one argument. If you have a prior injury, they’re often going to focus on two defenses at the same time:
They’re trying to reduce the case from both directions.
Even if fault is clear, New York’s no-fault insurance system puts another hurdle in front of you.
To recover for pain and suffering in a Long Island car accident case, you must meet what’s called the “serious injury” threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d). That includes things like:
This is where prior injuries become a focal point.
The defense argument is usually straightforward: “There’s nothing new here.” They’ll say your limitations existed before the accident, so you didn’t suffer a qualifying injury from this crash.
That’s the setup. Now we get to the real battleground.
A lot of people assume that if they had a prior injury, they’re out of luck. That’s not how New York law works.
You don’t need a brand-new injury to have a case.
If the accident made a preexisting condition worse, that’s something you can recover for. The law recognizes that people come into accidents with history. Prior injuries. Prior treatment. Sometimes even underlying degeneration.
The question isn’t whether you were ever hurt before.
The question is: what did this accident change?
Did your pain come back? Did it get worse? Did you need treatment again? Did your day-to-day life take a step backward?
If the answer is yes, that’s where the case lives.
Case Result
Palermo Law recovered $612,000 for a client whose prior back condition was worsened to the point of requiring surgery after a collision caused by a construction zone flagman.
Insurance carriers like to treat prior injuries like a knockout punch. It’s not.
In many cases, it’s actually the opposite.
Some of the strongest cases we handle involve aggravation of a prior condition because there’s a clear timeline. You can show where someone was, and where they ended up after the crash.
Think about back and neck injuries, the most common example we see. Someone treats for a herniated disc, improves, and gets back to work. They’re managing. Then the accident happens and they’re back in pain, back in treatment, and limited all over again.
Then the accident happens.
Now they’re back in pain. Back in treatment. Limited again.
That’s not the same condition continuing. That’s a setback caused by a new event. And that difference is compensable.
Every case is really a story backed by evidence.
The defense story, when there’s a prior injury, is predictable:
| Defense tactic | Plaintiff counter |
|---|---|
| Tactic 1
“You were already injured” — prior records show the same body part was treated before the accident. |
Counter
Show the gap in treatment. If the client was discharged and symptom-free for years, that prior condition was resolved. The accident reactivated it. |
| Tactic 2
“Your imaging shows degeneration, not trauma” — defense IME doctors attribute all findings to age-related wear, not the crash. |
Counter
Compare pre- and post-accident imaging directly. A disc bulge becoming a herniation is not the same condition. Objective changes on film speak louder than IME opinions. |
| Tactic 3
“Your complaints are the same as before” — defense combs prior records for similar pain descriptions to suggest nothing changed. |
Counter
Document functional limitations specifically. What the client cannot do now — work, sleep, exercise, care for family — that they could do before is the real measure of change. |
| Tactic 4
“The accident didn’t change anything” — the defense argues the crash was minor and caused no new harm beyond what already existed. |
Counter
Anchor causation in new treatment. Any specialist referral, injection, surgery, or prescription that postdates the crash and has no prior equivalent is direct evidence of new harm. |
They’ll comb through your prior records looking for anything that sounds similar. They’ll highlight it at your deposition. Their doctors will repeat it in their reports.
If they can turn your case into a “this was already there” situation, they reduce its value significantly.
Our job is not just to respond. It’s to tell the accurate version of what happened.
Going back to that shoulder example, we focus on something simple but powerful: before and after.
Before the accident:
After the accident:
That contrast is what matters.
Jurors understand setbacks. They understand when something gets worse. But it has to be shown clearly and consistently.
This is where a lot of cases are either built or lost.
You can’t just say something got worse. It has to be documented.
Your treating doctors need to address:
The insurance company is going to send you to their doctors. Those doctors are almost always going to say your condition is degenerative or unchanged.
The only way to counter that is with detailed, credible medical records from your own providers that explain what actually happened.
Most cases resolve without a trial. That’s just the reality.
But when there’s a prior injury, settlement negotiations take on a specific character. The central dispute is almost always the same: how much of your current condition is actually the result of this accident, and how much was already there?
The defense is going to push for a discount. That’s expected. What determines how large that discount is comes down to how well your attorney can demonstrate the impact of the new accident.
Several factors move that number in your direction.
| 1 | Time gap since prior treatment
The longer the documented gap between prior treatment and this accident, the cleaner the before-and-after story. A gap proves the prior condition had resolved. Example: Client treated for a lumbar disc injury in 2018, discharged, no treatment until this accident in 2024. Six-year gap effectively closes the prior injury argument. |
| 2 | Differences in diagnostic findings
Objective changes between pre- and post-accident imaging are the most powerful evidence. A changed diagnosis is not a continued diagnosis. Example: Pre-accident MRI (2019) shows mild disc bulge at L4-L5. Post-accident MRI (2024) shows herniation with nerve root compression at the same level. That is a measurable, documentable change — not the same condition. |
| 3 | Functional impact and daily limitations
What the client can no longer do is more persuasive than what they feel. Specific, documented limitations tied to this crash build credibility at every stage. Example: Before the accident — working full-time, coaching youth sports, no pain medication. After — on light duty, unable to lift, taking daily prescription anti-inflammatories. Each point is a documented, attributable change. |
| 4 | New treatment with no prior equivalent
Any post-accident treatment that has no pre-accident counterpart is direct, clean evidence of new harm caused by this crash. Example: Client never had epidural injections before. Post-accident, treating physician orders a series of cervical epidural steroid injections. Those injections, their cost, and the pain that required them are all new damages attributable solely to this accident. |
| 5 | Consistent client account across all records
Credibility is built through consistency. The client’s description of their condition before and after the accident must align across medical records, deposition, and trial testimony. Example: Client tells the treating physician, the independent medical examiner, and the jury the same thing — they had recovered, they were functional, and this accident set them back. Inconsistencies anywhere in that record become the defense’s closing argument. |
Our job is to pull all of that together into a coherent picture and present it in a way that makes the defense’s discount argument hard to sustain. Sometimes that produces a fair resolution. Other times, if the gap between positions is too wide, the case has to be tried. Either way, a prior injury does not eliminate value. It makes the case more work, but that work is exactly what experienced plaintiff’s attorneys are there to do.
If you have a prior injury and you’re involved in a new car accident, you should expect the insurance company to make it a central issue.
That’s not a sign your case is weak. It’s just how these cases are defended.
What matters is how the case is presented:
Handled the right way, these cases are absolutely viable. We deal with them every day.
Yes. Under New York law, you do not need a brand-new injury to have a valid claim. If a Long Island car accident aggravated, reactivated, or worsened a preexisting condition, you can recover compensation for the change in your condition caused by this accident. The key is showing what the accident actually changed.
Yes, and you should expect it. Insurance adjusters and defense attorneys routinely request authorizations to pull prior medical records, especially for the same body part at issue. They are looking for pre-accident treatment, similar complaints, or imaging that predates the crash. Knowing this in advance lets your attorney prepare a strong response.
Degenerative findings on MRI or X-ray are extremely common and do not automatically defeat your claim. The relevant question is whether the accident caused a change in your symptoms, function, or level of pain. A treating physician who can document the difference between your condition before and after the crash is essential to overcoming this defense.
Yes, and you should do so immediately. Disclosing prior injuries to your Long Island car accident attorney at the start of the case is critical. Undisclosed medical history that surfaces during discovery or at your deposition can damage your credibility and weaken your case significantly. Full disclosure allows your attorney to address it on your terms.
Treating physicians establish aggravation by comparing your documented baseline before the accident to your condition after. This includes reviewing prior records, performing objective range-of-motion testing, noting new or worsened findings on imaging, and providing a causation opinion connecting the change in your condition directly to the accident.
Treatment gaps can be used by the defense to argue your injuries were not serious or that something else caused your current complaints. However, gaps are often explainable. Common reasons include lack of insurance, financial hardship, prior authorization delays, or a good-faith belief that you were improving. The explanation matters and should be documented early.
New York follows a pure comparative fault rule, which means you can recover damages even if you were partially at fault for the accident. Your total recovery is reduced by your assigned percentage of responsibility. For example, if a jury values your case at $200,000 and finds you 25% at fault, you would receive $150,000.
Yes, significantly. If your medical records show that you had fully recovered from a prior injury before the accident, the before-and-after contrast becomes much cleaner and more persuasive. A documented gap in treatment for that condition, followed by a new onset of symptoms after the crash, strongly supports the argument that the accident caused the setback.
Not automatically, but prior injuries are frequently used by insurance carriers as leverage to reduce settlement value. The extent of any reduction depends on how well your attorney can demonstrate that this accident caused a distinct and documentable change in your condition. Strong medical proof limits the discount the defense can credibly argue for.
As early as possible, ideally before you give any recorded statements to the insurance company. When a prior injury is involved, the way the case is framed from the beginning matters. An experienced Long Island car accident attorney can guide your medical treatment, anticipate defense arguments, and build the documentation needed to establish causation from day one.
The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and reflects the opinions of the author. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and results depend on the specific facts and applicable law. You should not act or rely on any information in this blog without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney regarding your individual situation.
