They say it in nearly every case involving a spine, and the argument has a kernel of truth inside it, which is exactly what makes it effective.
Most adult spines show degenerative changes on an MRI. The insurer’s expert reads your imaging, notes those findings, and concludes that what hurts you was already there.
The answer is not to pretend your spine was pristine. It is that a pre-existing condition and a crash-caused injury are not mutually exclusive, and Texas law is clear about which one the defendant is responsible for.
The argument, stated fairly
A defense medical expert, often a physician who reviews records rather than examining you, will typically say some version of:
- The MRI shows multilevel degenerative changes consistent with the normal aging process.
- Degenerative findings develop over years and cannot be caused by a single event.
- The claimant’s symptoms are attributable to the underlying degenerative condition.
- The mechanism of this collision was insufficient to cause a disc injury.
Each of those statements is defensible in isolation. Together they are meant to produce a conclusion that does not follow: that because degeneration existed, the crash did nothing.
Why the argument is incomplete
Degeneration is common and usually silent. Imaging studies of asymptomatic adults routinely find disc bulges, protrusions, and desiccation in people with no back or neck pain whatsoever. Finding degeneration on a scan tells you the person is an adult. It does not tell you what is causing their symptoms.
The relevant question is not what the disc looks like. It is what changed. A person who worked full time, slept through the night, and had no treatment history before the crash, and who has radiating pain and documented deficits afterward, has experienced a change. The imaging describes structure. The clinical history describes function. Function is what the case is about.
Degenerated tissue is more vulnerable, not less. A disc that has lost hydration and height has less capacity to absorb load. The same forces that a healthy spine tolerates can produce an annular tear or herniation in a degenerated one. The defense argument treats pre-existing degeneration as protective. Mechanically, it is the opposite.
Some findings are not degenerative at all. An annular tear with high intensity zone signal, acute endplate changes, or a focal extrusion with corresponding nerve root compression are not the ordinary picture of gradual degeneration. Radiologists can and do distinguish acute from chronic findings.
What Texas law actually says
This is the part that decides it, and it is favorable.
Texas follows the principle that a defendant takes the injured person as they find them. If a person is more susceptible to injury because of a pre-existing condition, the defendant is still responsible for the harm caused, including the aggravation of that condition.
So the legal question is not whether your spine was perfect. It is whether the crash made it worse. Aggravation of a pre-existing condition is a compensable injury.
The defendant is not responsible for the degeneration you already had. They are responsible for the difference between where you were and where you are.
That reframing matters practically, because it shifts the case away from an unwinnable argument about whether your spine was normal and toward a provable one about what changed.
What actually wins it
A clear before-and-after record. This is the single most valuable evidence in a disc case. Prior medical records showing no treatment for the area, employment records showing full duty, and anything documenting your activity level beforehand. Ironically, a thick prior medical file with no spine complaints is better evidence than no file at all, because it shows you were seeking care for other things and never for this.
A treating physician, not just imaging. Someone who has examined you repeatedly, correlated your symptoms with the imaging findings, and can explain why this finding on this scan matches this patient’s presentation. A records reviewer who never touched the patient is at a structural disadvantage against a treater who has seen them fifteen times.
Correlation between the imaging and the exam. A disc finding at a level that matches the dermatomal distribution of the symptoms is far more persuasive than a finding somewhere unrelated.
Consistent treatment. Gaps are the defense’s second argument after degeneration. Keep appointments.
Biomechanical testimony where the impact is disputed. Particularly where the defense also argues the collision was too minor, which pairs with the argument covered in cars were meant to crash, people weren’t.
What you should do
Tell every provider about prior problems, honestly and completely. People hide prior injuries because they think it hurts the claim. It does the opposite. An undisclosed prior injury discovered in records during discovery damages credibility far more than the injury itself ever would, and credibility is the whole case.
Describe function, not just pain. “I cannot lift my daughter” and “I stopped sleeping on my left side” do more work than a number on a ten point scale.
Report radiating symptoms specifically. Numbness, tingling, weakness, and where exactly they travel. That distribution is what ties a structural finding to your clinical picture.
Do not stop treating because you feel plateaued. Ongoing documented care is what establishes permanence, which is what drives value.
Get your prior records yourself. Knowing what is in them before the defense does is always better.
What this means for you
If an adjuster has told you your MRI shows degenerative disease and therefore your claim is worth very little, understand what has happened. They have described a finding that is present in most adults and used it to describe your case.
The question that matters is what you could do before and what you can do now. That is a question your treating physician and your own history answer, and it is the question a jury is actually asked.
Robert Law Group handles Houston car accident claims and catastrophic injury cases in Texas and Utah, including the spine cases insurers price low because the imaging report contains the word degenerative. Call 832-509-2303.
Frequently asked questions
Can a car accident cause a herniated disc if I already had degeneration?
Yes. Degenerated discs have reduced capacity to absorb load, which can make them more vulnerable rather than less. Aggravation of a pre-existing condition is compensable in Texas.
Why does the insurance company say my disc injury is degenerative?
Because degenerative findings appear on most adult spine imaging, including in people with no symptoms. Insurers use that to argue the symptoms predated the crash.
Does a pre-existing condition ruin my injury claim in Texas?
No. Texas follows the principle that a defendant takes the injured person as they find them and is responsible for aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
Should I tell my doctor about prior back problems?
Yes, completely. An undisclosed prior injury found later in records does far more damage to a claim than the prior injury itself.
What evidence beats the degenerative disc defense?
A documented before-and-after picture of function, a treating physician who correlates imaging with examination findings, consistent treatment without gaps, and imaging findings that match the symptom distribution.