GET A FREE CONSULTATION
(702) 680-1111
Founding Member & Managing Partner at Gina Corena & Associates
Practice Areas: Personal Injury
After a Nevada car crash, an insurance adjuster may point to an old back injury, prior whiplash, or a past surgery and argue that your current pain was already there. This is a common way insurers try to reduce the value of a claim.
A prior injury does not automatically defeat your case. Nevada law recognizes that a crash can aggravate an existing condition, and the insurer must do more than point to an old medical record.
This article explains how Nevada handles pre-existing injuries, who has to prove what, how much medical history the insurer may request, and what steps can help protect your claim. If the insurer is using your medical history against you, a Las Vegas car accident lawyer can review the facts before you sign anything or give a recorded statement.
An insurer cannot deny a Nevada crash claim simply because you had a prior injury. Adjusters often use pre-existing conditions to make a claim seem weaker. The argument may sound convincing at first: if you had back pain before the crash, they may say the crash did not cause your current symptoms. But that is not the full legal picture.
The real question is whether the crash caused a new injury or worsened an existing condition. If it did, the aggravation could still be part of the claim.
Nevada follows the eggshell plaintiff rule. A negligent person takes the injured party as they are. That means a driver cannot avoid responsibility just because the person they hit was more vulnerable to injury. If an old back condition, knee injury, or neck problem made the crash more serious for you than it would have been for someone else, the law does not treat that as your fault.
The rule is often stated this way:
“A defendant whose wrongful conduct causes injury must take the injured party as they find them, even if the extent of harm exceeds what would occur to a typical person.” — Eggshell plaintiff doctrine, recognized across Nevada tort law.
The rule applies to aggravation of a prior condition. You still need to prove the crash made the condition worse, but the insurer cannot escape responsibility because the condition existed before.
The injured person must show that the crash caused or aggravated an injury. If the insurer wants to blame a prior condition, it must support that argument with competent evidence.
That distinction matters. An old medical record does not automatically prove that your current symptoms came from the old injury. The insurer needs evidence connecting the prior condition to the disputed injury.
Nevada courts require competent proof when pre-existing condition evidence is used to challenge causation. Expert testimony is often needed unless the connection is obvious to a non-specialist.
In practice, adjusters may act as if any past treatment is enough. It usually is not. The issue is causation, not merely whether you had a medical history.
Nevada discovery rules do not give an insurer unlimited access to your medical life. Under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery must be relevant and proportional to the claims and defenses in the case. Courts can limit overly broad requests. In many Nevada personal injury disputes, the typical scope is around five years of records related to the claimed injury.
You usually should not sign a blanket medical authorization that gives the insurer access to every record from every provider. Broad authorizations can bring unrelated medical issues into the claim and create unnecessary disputes.
If the insurer asks for your complete medical history early in the process, it is worth pausing before signing.
When an insurer leans on old injuries, the pattern is often familiar. The goal is usually to reduce pressure on the company and cast doubt on the claim.
Common examples include:
Most of these tactics rely on the claimant being unrepresented or unfamiliar with Nevada law. Once the legal framework is on the table, many tactics lose their weight.
The strongest response is usually medical documentation that separates your old condition from the crash-related change.
Practical steps include:
Treating-physician testimony can be especially important. A doctor who saw your condition before and after the crash may be able to explain the change more clearly than a defense expert reviewing records later.
|
What the insurer claims |
What Nevada law actually says |
| “Your old injury caused this” | Claimant must prove aggravation; insurer must prove pre-existence |
| “We need your complete medical history” | Discovery limited to relevant and proportional records |
| “Pre-existing conditions reduce recovery” | Eggshell rule protects aggravation-based recovery |
| “Sign this broad authorization” | You can limit scope or request protective order |
| “Your claim is weaker because of this” | Often legally weaker than the adjuster frames it |
| “Time is on our side” | NRS 11.190 sets a 2-year filing window |
A pre-existing injury is any documented injury, surgery, or condition affecting a body part also injured in the crash. Old back problems, prior knee surgeries, and earlier whiplash episodes are common examples. Nevada law does not penalize you for having a medical history. It only requires that the causal link between the current injury and the crash be established.
Not automatically. Under Nevada’s eggshell plaintiff rule, if the crash aggravated a prior condition, you are entitled to recovery for the aggravation. The insurer cannot simply subtract the value of your claim because of an old record. Your physician and attorney work together to frame the aggravation cleanly.
No. Nevada discovery rules limit the disclosure of medical records to what is relevant and proportional. A blanket authorization is usually not required and may create problems. The safer approach is to limit the request to the affected body part and a reasonable time period.
NRS 11.190 generally gives injury victims two years from the date of the crash to file a personal injury lawsuit in Nevada. Missing this deadline usually prevents a lawsuit, so it is better to review the claim early.
Get medical care and ask your treating physician to document the difference between your prior condition and your post-crash symptoms. Keep communication with the insurer limited until you understand what records and statements are safe to provide.
A pre-existing injury does not automatically make a Nevada crash claim weak. The important question is whether the crash caused a new injury or aggravated an old one.
Nevada’s eggshell plaintiff rule, burden-of-proof principles, and discovery limits can all protect injured people from overbroad insurer arguments. Medical documentation is usually the key. The clearer the records are about what changed after the crash, the harder it is for the insurer to reduce the claim based only on past treatment.
If you are dealing with a Nevada crash claim where the insurer is blaming your medical history, Gina Corena & Associates can review the facts, the records, and the counterarguments that may apply to your situation.
As founder of Gina Corena & Associates, she is dedicated to fighting for the rights of the people who suffer life-changing personal injuries in car, truck and motorcycle accidents as well as other types of personal injury. Gina feels fortunate to serve the Nevada community and hold wrongdoers accountable for their harm to her clients.
