The defense fabricates false discount factors to short our clients, then works hard to make them seem valid and universally accepted. A prime example is what they have done to “aggravation of a preexisting injury” cases. They have unfairly convinced themselves those cases are compromised and have far less value than new onset injury cases. They want you to put new herniation cases in one box, and aggravation cases in the marked-down box. Jurors haven’t been exposed to that baseless distinction and won’t come to trial seeing an aggravation case as flawed. Why should you? The purpose of this brushstroke is to set the record straight so this deceptive defense practice no longer leads to lowball settlements.
People with a long-standing back or neck problem have adjusted and learned to live with it. The preexisting condition is an accepted part of their life. They’d rather not have it, but it has become their normal, their baseline. When someone wrongfully causes that baseline to suddenly and permanently drop down to a much lower level, the loss is profound. The person now has to start all over in the long process of adapting and adjusting. The end result is a new normal where the experience of life is lessened forever. The level of health they still had in their spine before this crash was treasured. Taking away that baseline and replacing it with one that is much worse is a huge loss and must be measured accordingly.
To make matters worse, the person who has a pre-existing condition in their spine has less in reserve to lose. When there is less to start with, the net effect of taking is worse. The last thing a person with limited reserves needs is to have more taken from them.
This is part of a series I will send out about not letting the defense box you in with their preconceived notions about what factors discount the value of cases.