Not at all, unless you lie about it.
Many persons in car crashes have some pre-existing spine degeneration (basically the aging process) and/or some previous injury. If you are struggling to get better, your pre-existing condition may explain it.
The first thing to remember is if you decide to talk to ICBC or are asked about any pre-existing conditions/injuries by a medical person is to tell the truth. More likely than not, if you pursue a claim, your medical history will be uncovered. Also, it’s important medical persons know your history so they can better diagnose and treat you.
How does the law deal with pre-existing conditions?
If you have a pre-existing condition it’s not easy for a court and medical experts to determine what injuries and limitations were caused by your car accident. However, it’s done all the time.
There are two widely applied principles which are the “thin skull principle” and the “crumbling skull principle”. The thin skull principle says that a wrongdoer takes their victim as they find them. This means that if you, at the time of your accident, have a weak bone condition and you break your leg, you are entitled to payment for your harms and losses flowing from your broken leg. This is the case even if no other person in the world would have suffered a broken leg in your accident.
The crumbling skull principle says that your wrongdoer only has to pay you for your harms and losses flowing from your accident. How is this any different than the thin skull principle? It means that if you had arthritis at the time of your accident and ICBC proved that you would likely have XYZ symptoms and limitations at a certain date, then the wrongdoer doesn’t have to pay for those XYZ symptoms and limitations at a certain date. The reasoning is that you would have suffered XYZ regardless whether your accident occurred.
Getting back to the think skull principle, how does a court determine an appropriate award? What does the Court consider? A recent case that nicely distinguishes the thin skull and crumbling skull principles is the case of Stone v. Kirkwood [2008] B.C.J. No 1834, a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia which I’ll refer to as Stone. In Stone, the injured plaintiff was in a rear-end style car accident on August 30, 2005. He was 25 years old.
The plaintiff, a roofer, had scoliosis of the spine (abnormal curvature of the spine) and at the time of the accident and a history of back pain flare ups. ICBC argued (on the opinion of its doctor) that Mr. Stone’s injuries should have healed within 3 to 6 months and that any pain and limitations after that time is due to his pre-existing scoliosis. This is the classic crumbling skull argument.
The plaintiff argued (on the opinion of his doctor) that his pre-existing condition (minor scoliosis and history of back pain flare ups) rendered him susceptible to injury.
The court found held at para. 16 that “Mr. Stone had pain in his back prior to the collision and would have had it in the future if the collision had not occurred, but his motor vehicle injuries have increased his susceptibility to back pain and made that back pain worse when it occurs.”
As you can see from the case of Stone v. Kirkwood, pre-existing conditions isn’t necessarily a bar to being paid for your harms and losses. Instead, those pre-existing conditions may explain why your injuries and limitations persist longer than normal and if that is the case, you are entitled to appropriate compensation.
Related posts: