Funding for Plaintiffs With Preexisting Injuries

Preexisting Conditions Don't Automatically Destroy Your Case

If you had back pain, arthritis, or another medical issue before an accident, you've probably heard a familiar line from the insurance company: "That was already there." From a legal and funding perspective, that's only part of the story. The law generally recognizes that a defendant must take you as they find you. If someone's negligence makes an existing condition worse, the aggravation of that condition is compensable.

From our vantage point as a legal funding company, preexisting injuries do not automatically disqualify you from funding. Instead, they change the questions we ask. We focus on what your day-to-day life looked like before the incident, what changed afterward, and how clearly your medical records show that change. When aggravation is well documented, plaintiffs with prior issues can still have strong cases and be good candidates for responsible funding.

How Prior Injuries Affect Case Value

Case value is driven by more than just a diagnosis. Two people can have the same MRI findings but very different claims, depending on pain levels, functional limits, work impact, and documented changes after the incident. With preexisting or degenerative conditions—like osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, or chronic neck pain—the question becomes: how much of what you're experiencing now is truly new or substantially worse?

Insurers are quick to blame everything on wear-and-tear. That's especially common in complex litigation such as claims involving dangerous or faulty items. In those situations, we look closely at how the product failure affected someone whose body was already vulnerable and how the litigation team is connecting that aggravation to the incident. This can matter a lot for funding support in cases involving injured consumers in product-related injury claims, where the defense may argue that the "real" cause of the pain is long-term degeneration rather than the event itself.

From a valuation standpoint, preexisting issues can lead to lower offers if the defense successfully convinces a jury—or more commonly, an adjuster—that only a portion of your treatment is related to the accident. But if your medical providers clearly distinguish between old baseline problems and new, post-incident limitations, your attorney has more leverage. That, in turn, gives funders more confidence in the ultimate settlement range and allows us to consider advances that still leave room for a meaningful net recovery for you.

Underwriting Concerns: Causation and Apportionment

When we underwrite a case for possible funding, we spend a lot of time examining causation and apportionment. Causation is the link between the defendant's conduct and your current condition. Apportionment is how much of your overall injury picture can reasonably be attributed to the accident versus your prior history.

For plaintiffs with preexisting injuries, we look at questions like: Did you have active treatment in the months before the incident? Were you working full duty? Were you engaging in physical activities that show functional capacity? Did pain levels spike or did new body parts become symptomatic only after the accident?

We also consider the legal environment surrounding your case. In some states, newer rules and court decisions have changed how medical expenses are presented, which affects settlement expectations and underwriting. On top of that, state interest limits on legal funding and other regulations can influence how we structure advances and what is economically sensible for both the plaintiff and the funder. Our goal is to balance these factors so that, even after accounting for risk, costs remain aligned with a realistic settlement range.

The Role of Medical Records in Funding Decisions

For a plaintiff with a clean medical history, the focus is on documenting the injury. For a plaintiff with prior issues, the focus is on documenting the difference. That's why medical records are central to both case value and funding approval.

Underwriters pay attention to baseline notes before the incident: what was your pain level then? How often were you treating? Were your providers describing the condition as stable, improving, or worsening? Then we compare those notes to post-incident records. We look for clear statements that symptoms intensified, that new findings appeared on imaging, or that your functional abilities changed—such as struggling with tasks you previously handled without difficulty.

We also pay attention to consistency. If you tell your treating doctor one story, the ER another, and your physical therapist something different, the defense will seize on those inconsistencies. That makes causation and apportionment harder to prove, which makes underwriting more conservative. On the other hand, consistent reporting of an aggravation, backed by imaging and specialist notes, gives both your attorney and your funder more confidence.

Strategies to Document Aggravation of Preexisting Conditions

Strong cases for plaintiffs with preexisting injuries don't happen by accident; they're built. One of the simplest strategies is making sure your providers know your full history and understand why this incident was different. Telling your doctor, "I had occasional back pain before, but now I can't lift my grandkids or stand through a shift at work," helps them document functional change rather than just repeating an old diagnosis.

Updated imaging that compares "before and after" can also be powerful, especially in spinal or joint cases. When radiologists or treating specialists note objective changes—or at least a correlation between the trauma and increased symptoms—it strengthens the argument that the incident aggravated rather than merely coincided with your condition.

For many plaintiffs, the real impact of an aggravation is economic: missed work, restricted duty, or lost career opportunities. Clear documentation of work restrictions and wage loss makes it easier for both attorneys and funding underwriters to understand the stakes. That's true whether the claim involves a motor vehicle crash, a slip-and-fall, or a complex product-related injury where the plaintiff was already dealing with chronic pain but now faces a completely different level of disability.

Delays, Backlogs, and the Need for Stability

Preexisting injuries often give insurers more excuses to delay. Adjusters ask for older records, challenge causation, and send plaintiffs to multiple independent medical examinations. All of that takes time. When those disputes stack on top of already crowded claim departments, plaintiffs face long periods of uncertainty. Many feel the impact of delays driven by heavy insurance backlogs, particularly when they can no longer work as they did before the incident.

That's where funding can play a stabilizing role. A carefully sized advance can help cover rent, medical co-pays, or basic living expenses so you are not forced into accepting a low offer just to keep the lights on. For some, a structured option like pre settlement funding helps them stay the course while their attorney works through liability fights and apportionment battles.

Because legal funding is typically non-recourse, a well-structured lawsuit loan or advance can be a safer option than high-interest credit that you must repay regardless of case outcome. The key is making sure the expected settlement, even with disputed causation, is sufficient to leave you with a meaningful recovery after all costs are paid.

Trust, Transparency, and Responsible Use of Funding

When a case involves preexisting injuries, good communication and trust are essential. You're relying on your attorney to present a clear picture of aggravation, and you're relying on your funding provider to be honest about the risks and costs. As a company in this space, we believe plaintiffs are best served when they work with partners committed to transparent, ethics-focused funding practices. That means clear contracts, straightforward explanations of pricing, and an honest discussion of how much you should reasonably borrow.

Not every situation calls for an advance, even when preexisting injuries make life more complicated. Thoughtful funders and attorneys alike encourage clients to borrow only what they truly need to stay stable, not to chase a windfall. That kind of restraint matters even more when causation and apportionment are contested, because the range of possible outcomes can be wider than in a straightforward injury case.

Deciding When Funding Makes Sense for Your History

Ultimately, plaintiffs with prior injuries face the same core question as anyone else: is funding a tool that helps me pursue a fair outcome, or does it risk leaving me with too little at the end? The difference is that, with degenerative conditions and prior claims, the analysis must be more nuanced.

We encourage people to walk through the decision thoughtfully: What were you able to do before the incident? How much has your life changed? How confident is your attorney that the aggravation can be proved in light of your history? How long is the case likely to take, especially given the need for older records and additional expert opinions? And, after considering all that, how will an advance affect your potential net recovery across different settlement scenarios?

Responsible funding decisions start with clarity. By understanding how preexisting injuries and degenerative conditions influence case value, underwriting, and timing, you and your attorney can decide how to proceed. For some, that means moving forward with a modest advance. For others, it means waiting and focusing on building the best possible case. Either way, a thoughtful approach to deciding when legal funding is appropriate helps ensure that your medical history informs the strategy instead of controlling your future.