A pre-existing condition does not automatically defeat a Nevada personal injury claim. What it does is shift the “battlefield” toward medical causation and damages, meaning you must prove what the accident caused, what it aggravated, and what was already there.
Done correctly, many preexisting-condition cases are still strong cases. Done poorly, insurers argue the injury was “degenerative,” “chronic,” or “unrelated,” and they try to discount or deny the claim.
1) The core Nevada issue: causation and damages, not whether you “qualify” to sue
Nevada negligence law still requires proof that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of harm. Taylor v. Silva, 96 Nev. 738, 615 P.2d 970 (1980). Mahan v. Hafen, 76 Nev. 220, 351 P.2d 617 (1960). Drummond v. Mid-West Growers Coop. Corp., 91 Nev. 698, 542 P.2d 198 (1975).
With a preexisting condition, the practical question becomes:
- Did the accident cause a new injury?
- Did it aggravate a prior condition?
- Or did it cause only a temporary flare?
Those are medical questions that often require medical expert testimony expressed to a reasonable degree of medical probability under Nevada case law. Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005). Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 262 P.3d 360 (2011).
2) Nevada Supreme Court guidance on “preexisting injuries” evidence
A very important Nevada Supreme Court case for this topic is FGA, Inc. v. Giglio.
In that decision, the Court recognized that a prior injury or preexisting condition can be relevant to causation and damages in a personal injury action. FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 128 Nev. 271, 278 P.3d 490 (2012).
At the same time, the Court discussed limits: it is not enough for a defendant to point to “old records” and imply your current symptoms must be from the past. The Court addressed that the defense generally needs competent evidence of a causal connection between the prior condition and the current claimed injury, and expert testimony is often required unless the causal connection is readily apparent to a layperson. FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 128 Nev. 271, 278 P.3d 490 (2012).
This matters because insurers often treat a preexisting condition as a shortcut to deny causation. Nevada law, properly applied, pushes the analysis back to proof.
3) What you can recover when you have a preexisting condition
In practice, claims involving preexisting conditions typically seek damages for one or more of these categories:
- Aggravation of a preexisting condition (worsening beyond baseline).
- New injury on top of an old condition (for example, a new disc herniation superimposed on degenerative disc disease).
- Exacerbation or flare requiring treatment even if you later return to baseline.
The key is that your proof must distinguish, medically and factually, what the accident changed. That is where treating-physician documentation, imaging comparisons, and probability-based causation opinions become critical under Nevada’s medical causation decisions. Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005). Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 262 P.3d 360 (2011).
4) What insurers do with preexisting conditions, and how Nevada proof defeats it
A. “It’s degenerative.”
Degenerative findings on imaging are common, especially in the spine. The legal question is not whether degeneration exists, it is whether the accident caused symptoms, functional loss, need for care, or structural changes that would not have occurred at that time absent the accident.
B. “You already had pain.”
Even if you had prior pain, evidence that the pain level, frequency, function, or treatment needs changed after the accident is often powerful. A clear “before and after” story, backed by records, is how preexisting-condition cases are won.
C. “Your prior records prove it wasn’t this accident.”
Nevada law puts pressure on the party offering prior-condition evidence to show its relevance and causal connection, and courts apply Nevada evidence statutes to decide what the jury will hear. NRS 48.015. NRS 48.025. NRS 48.035(1). FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 128 Nev. 271, 278 P.3d 490 (2012).
5) When multiple incidents exist: prior accidents, later accidents, and apportionment
Preexisting conditions sometimes arise from prior accidents. When there are multiple incidents, apportionment can become a major defense theme.
Nevada case law addressing successive accidents discusses how, once causation is established, the burden can shift to the defendant to apportion damages if the defendant claims the injury is divisible. Kleitz v. Raskin, 103 Nev. 325, 738 P.2d 508 (1987).
In practical terms, if an insurer argues, “Most of this is from the earlier incident,” your proof strategy often requires (1) medical causation opinions and (2) record-based comparisons to show what changed after the new accident, and whether the harm can or cannot be fairly separated.
6) Best practices for plaintiffs with preexisting conditions
If you have a prior condition and you want your Nevada personal injury claim evaluated fairly, these steps matter:
- Disclose the preexisting condition to your providers and your attorney. Surprises usually hurt credibility.
- Gather the baseline records (prior imaging, PT notes, prior complaints).
- Document what changed after the accident, including new symptoms, new radiation patterns, new weakness, new limitations.
- Get the right medical evaluation so causation can be stated to a reasonable medical probability when needed. Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005).
- Anticipate the admissibility fight if the defense wants to weaponize prior history without competent causal linkage. FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 128 Nev. 271, 278 P.3d 490 (2012).
Nevada Legal Authorities Cited
Statutes
- NRS 48.015
- NRS 48.025
- NRS 48.035(1)
Cases
- FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 128 Nev. 271, 278 P.3d 490 (2012).
- Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005).
- Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 262 P.3d 360 (2011).
- Taylor v. Silva, 96 Nev. 738, 615 P.2d 970 (1980).
- Mahan v. Hafen, 76 Nev. 220, 351 P.2d 617 (1960).
- Drummond v. Mid-West Growers Coop. Corp., 91 Nev. 698, 542 P.2d 198 (1975).
- Kleitz v. Raskin, 103 Nev. 325, 738 P.2d 508 (1987).
If you need assistance with your personal injury case, don’t hesitate to contact Friedman Injury Law.
Friedman Injury Law
375 N. Stephanie St., Ste. 1411
Henderson, NV 89014
P: (702) 970-4222
W: blakefriedmanlaw.com