Imagine that you have been involved in an accident that has caused you serious injuries due to the negligence of another party. However, the pain you are now suffering from is not something entirely new, but rather an aggravation of pain you already had in the same body part at the time of the accident. You may be wondering if you are still entitled to recover damages from the negligent party, even though you were already suffering from injuries when the accident happened.
Although insurance companies often try to deny paying out claims where a victim suffered from pre-injuries, thankfully, New Jersey law is on the side of the victims. The negligent party will be responsible for the damage caused as-is, even if the victim had a pre-existing condition. As the injured party, you are indeed still entitled to recover damages caused from the negligence of another party, even if you suffered from pre-existing injuries. However, you should also keep in mind that once litigation gets underway, you will likely be required to provide objective medical testimony indicating what damages the other party actually caused in the accident.
Understanding the Polk Analysis in New Jersey Personal Injury Cases
In all negligence cases, an injured party must be able to establish four elements in order to qualify for monetary recovery: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; (3) an injury that is actually and proximately caused by the defendant's breach; and (4) damages. The element most often at issue when a plaintiff has pre-existing injuries is the causation element.
When it comes to personal injury claims, particularly those arising from car accidents, the complexities surrounding causation and pre-existing injuries can significantly impact the outcome of your case. One crucial concept in New Jersey law is the “comparative analysis” or the "Polk Analysis," named after the landmark case Polk v. Daconceicao.
What is the Polk Analysis?
The Polk Analysis is a comparative report written by a medical expert, analyzing medical records from before and after the accident. The report is used to differentiate between injuries caused by the recent accident and those injuries that were pre-existing. In the context of personal injury lawsuits, especially those involving the neck or back, this analysis is essential to establish causation—a key element in proving negligence.
The Polk Analysis requires that medical experts conduct a thorough review of pre-accident and post-accident medical records to substantiate any claims of aggravation. This analysis is particularly relevant if the plaintiff has a history of injuries to the same body part that was affected by the recent accident. Understanding when this analysis is required—and when it is not—can be pivotal for anyone navigating the legal landscape after an accident.
When is a Polk Analysis Required?
A Polk Analysis is necessary primarily when a plaintiff alleges an aggravation to a pre-existing injury. The Polk Analysis is used to determine the specific damages that the negligent party caused and is accordingly responsible for. If a plaintiff cannot demonstrate how the accident specifically caused their aggravation injuries, particularly if they have a history of similar issues, their case may be entirely dismissed. Thus, it is essential to document and keep your complete medical history in case you ever need to prove an aggravation injury.
For example, if you have a history of back pain and subsequently suffer a back injury in an accident that worsens your pre-existing back pain, you will be required to provide expert testimony differentiating the new effects of the accident from your prior back condition. Records that you can provide to a medical professional of any x-ray imaging that you had done on your back or any physical therapy you received for your back can be critical to your case regarding the aggravation of those prior back injuries. New Jersey courts have consistently held that failing to provide comparative evidence in an aggravation case can lead to the dismissal of the case, such as in the case of Polk v. Daconceicao.
When is a Polk Analysis Not Required?
Although a Polk Analysis is required when a person claims an aggravation to their prior injury, it is important to keep in mind what an aggravation actually is. Just because you had a prior injury to the same body part, does not mean that you can only claim an aggravation injury. Typically, aggravation claims, as opposed to claims for new injuries, result in lower damages.
A Polk Analysis may not be required if the plaintiff suffered from a brand-new injury, even if that injury is to a body part that they previously injured. The critical inquiry is whether you were still dealing with this same type of injury at the time of the accident. For instance, if you sustained a new and distinct injury in an accident—such as a fresh fracture or a sprain that has no direct correlation to pre-existing conditions—there may be no need to conduct a Polk Analysis. Likewise, courts have frequently determined that a Polk Analysis is unnecessary when the evidence clearly shows that all prior injuries were fully healed by the time of the new accident, indicating that the plaintiff is suffering from new injuries due to the recent accident.
This was notably highlighted in the case Davidson v. Slater, where the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that a Polk Analysis would impose an unnecessary layer of complexity on cases that did not involve prior injury aggravation. In situations where an aggravation injury is not claimed, the plaintiff’s burden is primarily to demonstrate that the injury occurred as a result of the defendant's actions, rather than to dissect the nuances of pre-existing injury issues. This distinction can streamline the legal process for plaintiffs who have suffered new injuries and enable them to pursue their claims without the added complexity of a Polk Analysis.
We are Here to Help!
Since a case can be entirely dismissed if a comparative analysis is not conducted in an aggravation case, it is essential to consult with an attorney to determine whether your injuries should be classified as an aggravation of prior injuries or an entirely new injury. If your injuries are an aggravation, an attorney will ensure that a Polk Analysis is completed to support your case.
Although aggravation cases can be more complex, do not be discouraged from seeking the compensation you deserve. For individuals with prior injuries seeking to file a personal injury claim, preparation is key. Engaging an attorney who understands the intricacies that can arise in cases involving pre-existing injuries can make all the difference in you receiving the full value of compensation for your injuries. They will ensure that necessary medical documentation is gathered and that the case is built on a solid foundation of expert testimony that meets legal standards.
If you are dealing with an injury case and wondering how your prior injuries could affect your claim, we are here to guide you. Reach out to us at Scura, Wigfield, Heyer, Stevens & Cammarota for a free consultation. We will help you understand your options and work to get you the value that you deserve for any harm and losses that you have suffered.
