Reasonably expected compensation?

[theCROZ]

What is the name of your state? NC

My question: if an injury sustained as a direct result of an accident requires special care because it is exacerbated by a pre-existing condition, can I reasonably expect compensation for this "extra" care?

I was involved in a motorcycle/auto accident on 4/29 in which I was the rider and a lady pulled out in front of me from a private drive. The speed limit on this mountain 2-lane road is 55 mph; I was traveling east at 50 mph (per the police report) and the lady pulled onto the road (from the north and turning east) aproximately 50 feet in front of me - I only had time to leave 40 feet of skid mark before my bike struck her vehicle just in front of the rear passenger tire. Liability doesn't seem to be an issue - her insurance company seems to be accepting their client's negligence and paying (my bike was totaled). All of my injuries are soft-tissue related (road rash and aches/pains from blunt trauma) - no broken bones - but I am a diabetic and any open wound below the knee can lead to serious complications if not treated aggressively. I received a 3rd degree burn on my left lower leg from contact with the engine of my bike and it subsequently became infected (despite cleaning/dressing changes every 3 - 4 hours along with prescription antibiotics) and required additional doctor visits (3), additional missed days from work (48 hours), and another prescription of antibiotics - not to even mention the additional stress/anxiety over the possibility of losing a limb.

I understand that insurance companies wouldn't want to dole out compensation for exacerbation of pre-existing conditions (after all, we're the ones that ultimately pay for that compensation) but would these additional costs of a sustained injury being exacerbated by a pre-existing condition be wrong for me to include in settlement negotiations?

Any advice would be welcome.

-=CROZ=-

[ecmst12]

Yes, the other driver is liable for exacerbation of any pre-existing injuries or other conditions due to the accident they caused. It's called the "eggshell clause". Say you hit a little old lady with osteoporosis and break her back. It doesn't matter that a young, strong person wouldn't have had their back broken in a similar accident; you didn't hit a young, strong person, you hit a fragile little old lady. And if you had NOT hit her, she would not have broken her back, so you are still liable for the full extent of that injury. In your case, the other driver hit a diabetic, and is responsible for all injuries/treatments arising from the accident, including your infection and subsequent wound care.

[theCROZ]

Thank you for responding; that was what I thought, too.

I don't think that even the most jaded/cynical adjuster could consider the broken back in your scenario as an 'exacerbation of a preexisting condition'. But that was a good example of my situation - if the accident hadn't occurred, I wouldn't have had the wound in the first place.

[ecmst12]

Glad I could help

[tranquility]

I agree with the concept of the eggshell plaintiff and feel it *may* apply here. However, for an answer to the question not asked, have you been hurt more because of the pre-existing condition?

You will get compensated for your reasonably necessary medical expenses. You will need to have a doctor state you *needed* the wound be "treated aggressively". Fear about what *might* happen is not compensable.

[ecmst12]

Treating an open, infected wound on the leg of a diabetic person aggressively is the ONLY medically appropriate option.

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by ecmst12

Treating an open, infected wound on the leg of a diabetic person aggressively is the ONLY medically appropriate option.

Tranq wasn't saying otherwise, just that the treating doc will need to state this somewhere so that when the at-fault driver's insurance company reviews the OPs meds, they'll know that this was required Tx that they are on the hook for. (A matter of proof, not a matter of entitlement.)

Originally Posted by theCROZ

What is the name of your state? NC

My question: if an injury sustained as a direct result of an accident requires special care because it is exacerbated by a pre-existing condition, can I reasonably expect compensation for this "extra" care?

I was involved in a motorcycle/auto accident on 4/29 in which I was the rider and a lady pulled out in front of me from a private drive. The speed limit on this mountain 2-lane road is 55 mph; I was traveling east at 50 mph (per the police report) and the lady pulled onto the road (from the north and turning east) aproximately 50 feet in front of me - I only had time to leave 40 feet of skid mark before my bike struck her vehicle just in front of the rear passenger tire. Liability doesn't seem to be an issue - her insurance company seems to be accepting their client's negligence and paying (my bike was totaled). All of my injuries are soft-tissue related (road rash and aches/pains from blunt trauma) - no broken bones - but I am a diabetic and any open wound below the knee can lead to serious complications if not treated aggressively. I received a 3rd degree burn on my left lower leg from contact with the engine of my bike and it subsequently became infected (despite cleaning/dressing changes every 3 - 4 hours along with prescription antibiotics) and required additional doctor visits (3), additional missed days from work (48 hours), and another prescription of antibiotics - not to even mention the additional stress/anxiety over the possibility of losing a limb.

I understand that insurance companies wouldn't want to dole out compensation for exacerbation of pre-existing conditions (after all, we're the ones that ultimately pay for that compensation) but would these additional costs of a sustained injury being exacerbated by a pre-existing condition be wrong for me to include in settlement negotiations?

Any advice would be welcome.

-=CROZ=-

Croz,
If you had an wound on your leg before the accident, it might be considered "pre-existing".
Your diabetes is a premorbid condition. Not "preexisting".