Quick Answer
An adjuster’s statement that your injuries “aren’t related” is a medical causation dispute, not a final legal decision. In Nevada, causation often must be proven through competent medical evidence, and when the issue is beyond common knowledge, expert testimony must be stated to a reasonable degree of medical probability, not mere possibility. 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).
The most effective response is to build a record that answers the insurer’s causation attack point by point, using Nevada law and the right evidence.
1) Why insurers deny “relatedness”
In practice, insurers deny causation for predictable reasons:
- Treatment started late.
- There were gaps in care.
- You had a preexisting condition.
- Symptoms are largely subjective.
- Imaging shows degenerative findings.
- There is a prior accident, later accident, or intervening event.
- Your injury mechanism is disputed, for example low property damage arguments.
Nevada law gives a roadmap for how these disputes are resolved, and it is evidence-driven.
2) The Nevada legal standard, causation must be proven, and sometimes by medical probability
Nevada negligence claims require proof that the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of harm. Nevada decisions describe proximate cause concepts and emphasize causation as part of liability. Taylor v. Silva, 96 Nev. 738, 615 P.2d 970 (1980); Mahan v. Hafen, 76 Nev. 220, 351 P.2d 617 (1960).
When the causal link is a medical question beyond everyday experience, Nevada requires competent expert medical evidence, and causation opinions must be expressed to a reasonable degree of medical probability. 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). Expert testimony is governed by Nevada’s expert opinion statutes. NRS 50.265; NRS 50.275.
3) The evidence that most effectively proves “relatedness” in Nevada
A) Early, consistent medical documentation
One of the most powerful causation tools is a clean timeline:
- Date and mechanism of injury, documented.
- Symptoms reported early and consistently.
- Treatment progression that matches the clinical picture.
Nevada’s evidence statutes include an exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, which is one reason your early symptom reports in medical records often matter more than later litigation narratives. NRS 51.115.
B) Treating physician causation statements in probability language
When an adjuster says “not related,” it is often because no doctor has clearly said, in substance, that the crash more likely than not caused the condition, aggravated it, or caused a symptomatic flare requiring treatment.
In many cases, a treating physician’s documented causation opinion, stated in probability terms, is the cleanest way to meet Nevada’s causation standard in contested cases. Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005).
C) Objective findings when available
Objective support is not always required, but it often helps, especially when symptoms are disputed.
Examples include imaging findings consistent with the mechanism, documented spasms, neurologic deficits, EMG results, surgical findings, and consistent physical exam findings.
4) If you have preexisting conditions, Nevada law still allows recovery, but the defense must do it correctly
Preexisting conditions are one of the most common causation denial tools.
Nevada’s Supreme Court has held that evidence of a prior injury or preexisting condition can be relevant, but it generally requires competent proof of a causal connection to the current claimed injuries, 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). Nevada relevance and prejudice statutes control admissibility fights in these disputes. NRS 48.015; NRS 48.025; NRS 48.035(1).
A well-built case does not pretend the prior condition never existed. It explains baseline and what changed after the accident, supported by records and medical opinion.
5) If there was a prior accident or later accident, apportionment issues may apply
Insurers often deny “relatedness” by pointing to other incidents.
Nevada recognizes that when multiple incidents contribute to harm, apportionment can become a major issue, and Nevada case law addresses burden shifting concepts when a defendant argues damages are divisible. Kleitz v. Raskin, 103 Nev. 325, 738 P.2d 508 (1987).
This often becomes a medical timeline question: what symptoms existed before, what changed after, and whether harm can be reasonably separated.
6) Treatment gaps, the insurer uses them for causation and mitigation
Gaps in care are commonly argued as:
- “You were not really hurt,” which is a causation argument.
- “You failed to mitigate,” which is a damages reduction argument.
Nevada recognizes mitigation and avoidable consequences principles, and insurers often rely on those concepts when they claim treatment gaps made your condition worse or prolonged recovery. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Beckwith, 115 Nev. 372, 989 P.2d 882 (1999); Automatic Merchandisers, Inc. v. Ward, 98 Nev. 282, 646 P.2d 553 (1982).
The best defense is documentation, explain the gap in a way that appears in medical records when appropriate, and resume reasonable care if symptoms persist.
7) What happens if the dispute does not resolve, litigation tools exist
If the insurer continues to deny causation and the case must be litigated:
- The defense may seek an examination under NRCP 35.
- The parties may retain experts.
- Medical records, provider testimony, and expert opinions become central.
This is why early medical documentation and consistent treatment are not just “good ideas,” they are foundational evidence in a Nevada causation dispute.
8) Deadline reminder
Do not let causation arguments drag on past the filing deadline. Most Nevada personal injury actions must be filed within two years. NRS 11.190(4)(e).
Nevada legal authorities cited
- NRS 11.190(4)(e).
- NRS 48.015.
- NRS 48.025.
- NRS 48.035(1).
- NRS 50.265.
- NRS 50.275.
- NRS 51.115.
- Automatic Merchandisers, Inc. v. Ward, 98 Nev. 282, 646 P.2d 553 (1982).
- Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Beckwith, 115 Nev. 372, 989 P.2d 882 (1999).
- FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 128 Nev. 271, 278 P.3d 490 (2012).
- Kleitz v. Raskin, 103 Nev. 325, 738 P.2d 508 (1987).
- Mahan v. Hafen, 76 Nev. 220, 351 P.2d 617 (1960).
- Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005).
- Taylor v. Silva, 96 Nev. 738, 615 P.2d 970 (1980).
- Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 262 P.3d 360 (2011).
- NRCP 35.
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