Pre-Existing Injury? You Can Still Win in Michigan
You had a bad back, an old neck problem, arthritis, or a prior accident, and now the insurance adjuster is telling you the crash did not really hurt you, that it was all there before, so they owe you nothing. It is one of the most common things insurers say, and it scares people into walking away from real claims. Here is the truth. In Michigan, having a pre-existing condition does not bar your case. The law says a careless driver takes you as you are, fragile spots and all, and is responsible for making an existing problem worse. If the crash aggravated a prior injury or woke up a condition that was not bothering you, that new harm is compensable. The rule is not a magic word, though. You still have to show, with medical proof, that the crash caused new harm or made the old condition worse. This guide explains the rule that protects you, why the insurer’s argument so often fails, how to prove a made-worse injury, and what to do when an adjuster blames your past.
The Rule: A Wrongdoer Takes You as You Are
Michigan follows what lawyers call the eggshell plaintiff rule. The idea is simple and fair. A person who carelessly injures someone does not get a discount because the victim happened to be more fragile than average. If your prior condition made you easier to hurt, that is the at-fault driver’s problem, not yours. Michigan’s model jury instruction states it plainly: the defendant takes the plaintiff as he or she finds them, and if the plaintiff was unusually susceptible to injury, that does not relieve the defendant from liability for the harm caused by the defendant’s negligence (M Civ JI 50.10).
There is a companion rule for conditions that already existed. Even if you had a back problem or a prior injury before the crash, you can recover for the amount the crash aggravated or accelerated it. Michigan’s jury instruction on aggravation of a pre-existing condition (M Civ JI 50.04) lets a jury award damages for making an existing ailment worse. You are not asking to be paid for the condition you already had. You are asking to be paid for the additional harm the crash caused, and the law allows exactly that.
The Michigan Case That Proves the Point
One Michigan Supreme Court decision shows how powerful this protection can be. In Wilkinson v Lee, 463 Mich 388 (2000), a man was rear-ended hard enough to break his seat. He happened to have a slow-growing brain tumor that likely existed before the crash and had not yet caused him trouble. His doctors testified that the trauma from the accident could have triggered or accelerated the symptoms he then suffered. The defense argued the tumor, not the crash, was the cause. The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the evidence was enough for a jury to find the accident was a proximate cause of his injury.
The lesson for an ordinary client is direct. You do not lose your case just because a condition existed in your body before the crash. If competent medical evidence shows the collision set off, sped up, or worsened your symptoms, you can recover for that harm. The insurer’s job is to point at your history. Your job, with the right help, is to connect the crash to the change in your condition.
Why the Insurer Raises Your History
Adjusters comb through years of medical records looking for any prior mention of back pain, neck pain, headaches, or joint trouble. When they find one, they argue the crash changed nothing. The argument works only when it goes unanswered. The reason it fails so often is that there is usually a clear before-and-after story: you were managing fine, working, and living normally, and after the crash you were not. The law cares about that change, and so do juries.
It helps to understand the difference between two situations the insurer tries to blur together.
| What the insurer says | What the law actually allows |
|---|---|
| “You had back problems before, so we owe nothing.” | You can recover for how much the crash worsened the back problem (M Civ JI 50.04). |
| “A normal person would have shrugged this off.” | The driver takes you as you are; unusual fragility is no defense (M Civ JI 50.10). |
| “Your symptoms come from your old condition, not the crash.” | If the crash triggered or accelerated the symptoms, that is compensable (Wilkinson v Lee). |
| “You were already getting treatment, so this is the same injury.” | New or increased treatment after the crash helps prove aggravation, not the opposite. |
How You Prove a Made-Worse Injury
Winning an aggravation case is about evidence, and the good news is that most of it is in your own life and records. The strongest cases tend to share a few things. Your medical history shows the prior condition was stable or improving before the crash. There is a clear gap, or a sharp increase in treatment, after the crash. Imaging or testing shows a new finding or a worsening compared with earlier scans. Your treating doctor is willing to explain, in plain terms, how the collision changed your condition. And people who know you, family, coworkers, friends, can describe what you could do before and what you cannot do now.
Honesty is your ally here. Do not hide a prior injury and do not let anyone suggest you should. The eggshell rule only works when your history is on the table, because the whole point is that a fragile starting point is no defense. Trying to conceal a prior condition hands the insurer the one thing that truly damages a case, which is a credibility problem. Disclose the history, then prove the change.
The Threshold and Deadlines Still Apply
The eggshell rule helps you on causation, but the usual Michigan auto rules still frame the claim. To recover for pain and suffering, the aggravation must clear the threshold in MCL 500.3135, meaning death, permanent serious disfigurement, or a serious impairment of body function as defined in ਮੈਕਕੋਰਮਿਕ ਬਨਾਮ ਕੈਰੀਅਰ, 487 Mich 180 (2010). A worsened condition that now affects your general ability to lead your normal life can meet that test. We explain it in our guide to the serious impairment threshold. Separately, your no-fault PIP benefits still pay for reasonable and necessary treatment of the aggravation under MCL 500.3107, regardless of fault, up to the medical coverage level on the policy. And the clock still runs: the lawsuit for pain and suffering generally must be filed within three years under MCL 600.5805, as we cover in our guide to the personal injury statute of limitations.
ਅਕਸਰ ਪੁੱਛੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਸਵਾਲ
Can I still sue if I had a prior injury to the same body part?
Yes. Michigan lets you recover for the amount a crash aggravated or accelerated a pre-existing condition (M Civ JI 50.04). You are not paid for the old injury itself, but you are paid for the additional harm the crash caused, even if the same body part was involved before.
The adjuster says my injury was pre-existing. Is my case over?
No. That is a common negotiating tactic, not a rule of law. Under the eggshell plaintiff rule (M Civ JI 50.10), a careless driver takes you as you are. If medical evidence shows the crash made your condition worse, you can recover for that worsening.
What is the eggshell plaintiff rule?
It means a wrongdoer is responsible for the harm they cause even if the victim was unusually fragile and a healthier person would have been hurt less. Michigan applies this rule, so a prior condition that made you easier to injure does not reduce the at-fault party’s responsibility.
Should I tell my lawyer about old injuries?
Always. Full disclosure is essential, because the eggshell rule depends on your history being known. Hiding a prior condition only creates a credibility problem if the insurer finds it later. Disclose the history, then focus on proving how the crash changed your condition.
How do I prove the crash made my condition worse?
Through your records and your life. A stable or improving condition before the crash, a sharp increase in treatment after it, new or worsening imaging, a treating doctor who can explain the change, and witnesses who saw the difference all build the case. The contrast between your life before and after is the heart of it.
Does a pre-existing condition lower my settlement?
It can affect the analysis, because you are compensated for the aggravation rather than the entire condition, but it does not bar recovery and it is not the case-killer insurers suggest. Well-documented worsening of a prior condition can support full and fair compensation.
Told your injury was “pre-existing”? Don’t take their word for it.
Attorney Manny Chahal proves how a crash worsened a prior condition and holds the at-fault driver responsible. Free statewide review. No fee unless we recover.
1-844-624-2425 'ਤੇ ਕਾਲ ਕਰੋ