Many people live with arthritis, recurring pain, previous injuries or mental health conditions while continuing to work and manage their normal responsibilities. If an accident suddenly makes that condition worse, the person may experience increased pain, additional treatment needs and new limitations.
Insurers sometimes focus heavily on prior medical history. However, an old diagnosis does not automatically mean that an accident caused no compensable injury. Ontario personal injury claims require a careful assessment of what the claimant’s life and health looked like before and after the incident.
Can You Make a Claim When You Were Already Injured?
Yes, depending on the evidence. An injured person does not need to have been in perfect health before an accident.
A claim may arise if the incident:
- Worsened an existing injury
- Reactivated dormant symptoms
- Accelerated the progression of a condition
- Created a new injury in the same area
- Made recovery from an earlier condition more difficult
- Increased the need for treatment or assistance
- Reduced the person’s ability to work or perform daily tasks
Compensation is intended to address the consequences caused by the accident. It does not generally cover problems that would have occurred in the same way even if the accident had never happened.
Establishing the Pre-Accident Baseline
One of the most important steps is determining the claimant’s condition immediately before the accident. This is known informally as establishing the pre-accident baseline.
Relevant questions may include:
- Was the person receiving active treatment?
- How frequently did symptoms occur?
- Was the person taking prescription medication?
- Were there any workplace restrictions?
- Could the person drive, exercise or perform household tasks?
- Had the condition recently improved?
- Was surgery or another major treatment already planned?
Imagine that someone experienced occasional back discomfort but worked full time and required no regular treatment. After a collision, the person develops daily pain, attends physiotherapy and can no longer lift objects at work. Although the body part is the same, the evidence may demonstrate a meaningful change.
A personal injury lawyer Mississauga claimants approach may review historical and current medical records to identify that difference.
Understanding the Thin-Skull Rule
The thin-skull rule protects people who were unusually vulnerable to injury before an accident. Under this principle, a negligent defendant generally cannot argue that the claimant should receive less simply because another person might have recovered more quickly or sustained a less serious injury.
The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in Athey v. Leonati that a defendant may remain responsible when negligence contributes to an injury alongside other causal factors. The decision also distinguishes a vulnerable claimant from someone whose condition was already deteriorating independently. Review Athey v. Leonati on CanLII.
The thin-skull rule does not remove the need to prove causation. The claimant must still establish that the accident caused or contributed to the injury being claimed.
Understanding the Crumbling-Skull Rule
A crumbling-skull situation is different. It arises when evidence indicates that the claimant’s existing condition would likely have produced some future disability or loss without the defendant’s actions.
Suppose a person had a progressively worsening condition and medical evidence showed that they would probably have stopped working within five years. If an accident causes them to stop working immediately, the defendant may be responsible for accelerating the loss. However, the assessment of compensation may reflect the likelihood that the original condition would eventually have caused similar limitations.
This analysis is not based on speculation alone. Medical opinions, treatment history, symptom progression and functional evidence are relevant when estimating what probably would have happened without the accident.
Medical Evidence and Causation
Causation connects the accident to the injury and resulting losses. Timing is important, but the fact that pain appeared after an accident does not automatically prove that the accident caused it.
Medical records may help establish:
- When symptoms were first reported
- Whether the symptoms were new or more severe
- Whether objective findings changed
- What treatments became necessary
- Whether additional restrictions were imposed
- How the condition responded to treatment
- Whether another explanation is medically probable
Specialists or other qualified professionals may be asked to provide opinions about diagnosis, prognosis and the extent to which the accident contributed to the person’s current condition.
A personal injury lawyer Brampton residents contact may also examine employment, income and activity evidence to understand the practical consequences of the medical change.
Consistency and Credibility
Consistency does not require every medical note to use identical language. Symptoms can fluctuate, and healthcare providers may record different details during different appointments.
Nevertheless, substantial unexplained differences can create difficulties. For instance, an insurer may question a claim if an individual reports no previous back problems despite years of documented treatment.
Claimants should provide accurate information about:
- Earlier accidents
- Previous insurance or disability claims
- Medication and treatment
- Work restrictions
- Chronic medical conditions
- Prior imaging and specialist referrals
Honest disclosure allows the evidence to show the true difference between the person’s earlier condition and their post-accident health.
Useful Supporting Evidence
In addition to medical records, the following evidence may help:
- Attendance and payroll records
- Workplace accommodation requests
- Receipts for treatment and assistive devices
- A symptom and activity diary
- Photographs of injuries
- Statements from people familiar with the claimant
- Records of interrupted hobbies or caregiving activities
- Documentation of home-care assistance
Friends, family members and co-workers may be able to describe observable changes, such as reduced mobility, difficulty concentrating or an inability to perform tasks previously completed without assistance.
Do Not Overlook Deadlines
Ontario’s basic limitation period normally requires a legal proceeding to be commenced within two years from the date the claim was discovered. Discoverability has a specific legal meaning, and exceptions may apply. The current statutory framework can be found in the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002.
Other deadlines may be significantly shorter. For example, certain claims involving municipal road or sidewalk maintenance can trigger a statutory notice requirement. Section 44 of Ontario’s Municipal Act, 2001 contains a 10-day notice provision, subject to statutory qualifications.
Conclusion
A successful claim involving a pre-existing condition usually depends on evidence of change. Medical records, employment information and accounts of daily functioning can help distinguish previous limitations from accident-related harm.
Mississauga personal injury lawyers and Brampton personal injury lawyers may help injured people understand how causation, disclosure and limitation periods apply to their individual circumstances.
Sign in to leave a comment.