Representing people injured in a car wreck, tractor trailer accident, or slip and fall has its challenges. The one that really gets me most offended is when the insurance company puts the injured victim on trial. They do this by inferring that the injured victim is malingering or faking the injury or the extent of the injury, often without any proof whatsoever. They rely on tort reform mentality and then exploit the alleged "lack of objective evidence," such as negative x-rays or MRI’s that make reference to "degenerative conditions" to infer that the injured victim was already hurt. To combat this tactic, it is important to document the symptoms prior to the collision, fall, etc. verses afterwards. This is most commonly achieved through the observations of lay witnesses (ordinary people such as neighbors, co-workers, and family). If the victim was not demonstrating difficulties prior to the accident, but had obvious trouble afterwards, there is little the defense can do to rebut this. It is also very important to make sure your treatment provider can document the causal relationship between the tort (negligent driving, premises liability, etc.) and the symptoms. Even if the victim did have a pre-existing condition, if the tort exacerbated (made it worse), the claim is still valid. Good lawyering demands thorough case preparation that anticipates insurance industry defenses and properly documents the file so that these offensive tactics can be easily shot down. My experience is that if the case goes to trial and the Plaintiff’s case is properly presented, the jury is equally offended at the defense tactic and will actually punish them for trying it.