Effect of Previous Accidents on Your Personal Injury Claim

Anytime that a driver or passenger that got injured in a previous accident becomes involved in a more recent collision, that recovered victim must prove that the new injuries were not caused by an intensification of lingering effects from the earlier problem. ICBC demands such proof, even though, legally, no defendant can select the condition of his or her victim.

Experienced lawyers have learned how to deal with ICBC’s typical way of seeing things, and its way of investigating claimants. That knowledge helps them to fight a charge made against a client that has recovered from a previous injury. The following paragraphs should provide the reader with a better insight into the lawyers’ ability to tackle the task of proving a given client’s healthy condition, during the period leading up to a given collision.

How a lawyer helps with the creation of such proof?

The lawyer works to establish a baseline. The lawyer’s efforts focus on finding evidence of the victim’s good health during the days prior to the accident. Normally, such evidence can be found in the medical reports from various doctors and treatment facilities. Evidence of the victim’s good health suggests the absence of any lingering effects from an earlier problem/injury.

In the field of medicine, any medical problem must be compared to a baseline figure. The legal profession cannot create a new way for looking at harm to the body. Consequently, ICBC must accept the figures associated with a baseline. Those figures get compared with new figures, those obtained from tests on an injured victim.

Additional evidence of the victim’s full recovery from a previous injury

A good ICBC Lawyers in Kelowna would visit more than just the doctors that observed and treated the previously injured client. A good attorney would also take the time to visit the locations where any tests had been performed. The test results could be used to support a claim that the client had recovered fully from his or her earlier injuries.

This is also one time when pictures posted on a social media network might prove helpful. Any pictures posted after the victim’s recovery could show that he or she was carrying out all sorts of activities. Obviously, such photographic proof of the victim’s recovery could not be denied by ICBC, which respects the message inherent in any pictures that have been posted on a social media network.

Like most insurers, ICBC’s method for finding fraudulent claims entails examining the photographs posted on the Internet. Since the agency acknowledges the message in such pictures, it cannot deny in an off-handed manner the pictured proof of a victim’s recovery. Indeed, a good attorney would seek to make use of that particular fact.