What is My Case Worth? How Louisiana Courts Calculate Injury Damages

The Three Pillars of Louisiana Injury Damages: Cause, Duration, and Intensity

One of the most common tactics insurance companies use to lower a settlement is pointing to a pre-existing condition. They argue that because you were treated for a similar pain years ago, your current suffering isn’t their fault. However, Louisiana law is clear: a defendant must take the victim as they find them. A recent Lafayette case proves that even if you have a history of treatment, you are entitled to full compensation if an accident worsens your condition.

1. Causation: The “But-For” Rule

The first hurdle is proving that the accident actually caused the injury. In Louisiana, this is often complicated by pre-existing conditions. However, the law follows the “Eggshell Skull” doctrine, which states that a defendant is responsible for the damages they cause, even if the victim was already fragile. If an accident “aggravates” an old back injury, the defendant is liable for that aggravation.

2. Duration: The Length of the Suffering

The court looks at exactly how long the injury lasted. A “soft tissue” injury that heals in three months will be valued differently than a herniated disc that causes chronic pain for three years. As seen in the recent Lafayette appellate ruling, if a trial court only awards damages for a few months of pain but acknowledges you needed medical treatment for years, that award is considered legally inconsistent and can be increased on appeal.

3. Intensity: The Impact on Daily Life

This is where “Quality of Life” comes into play. The court evaluates the “intensity” of the pain and how it restricted your ability to work, enjoy hobbies, or care for your family. This is subjective, which is why detailed medical records and “before and after” witness testimony are vital. The more intense the disruption to your normal life, the higher the “quantum” (the dollar amount) the court will likely award.

Case Study: When Inconsistent Awards Lead to an Appeal

In a recent case, the plaintiff appealed from the Parish of Lafayette to the State of Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit based on the issue of damages. In this case, the plaintiff was in a car accident where she suffered significant damage to her back. As a result of this injury, she spent approximately twenty-eight months with the chiropractor attempting to correct the damage sustained to her lower back.

The “Pre-Existing Condition” Trap: Does Prior Treatment Reduce Your Award?

Many people worry that a prior injury—like a “bad back” from ten years ago or a recurring neck strain—will disqualify them from receiving a settlement after a new accident. Insurance companies count on this fear. They often dig through years of medical records to find any mention of similar pain, then use it to argue that your current suffering is simply “maintenance” of an old problem.

In Louisiana, however, the law protects you through the “Eggshell Skull” Plaintiff Rule. This doctrine states that a defendant must take the victim as they find them. If you had a pre-existing condition that was stable or manageable, and a new accident “lit the fuse” or made that condition worse, the negligent party is responsible for the entirety of the aggravation.

Overcoming the “Degenerative Disc” Defense
It is almost universal for MRI reports of adults over 30 to mention “degenerative disc disease.” This is simply a natural part of aging, much like getting gray hair. The defense will try to use this phrase to claim your injury is “age-related” rather than “accident-related.”

To defeat this trap, we focus on the change in lifestyle:

• The “Baseline” Argument: Were you working and active the day before the accident?
• The Frequency of Treatment: Had you seen a doctor for this specific pain in the 12 months before the crash?
• The New Symptoms: Is the pain sharper, radiating down a limb, or accompanied by new numbness?

As the recent appellate court rulings show, when an accident transforms a “silent” pre-existing condition into a painful, life-altering injury, the court is legally required to award damages for the full duration of that new pain—not just a few months of “acute” recovery.

Although the victim visited the chiropractor before the accident occurred, the doctor recorded the services rendered before and after the accident. The doctor stated that the victim’s injuries worsened and the accident definitely caused the worsened condition. The lower court awarded general damages and medical fees, but it only ordered enough general damages that would cover seven months after the accident. It explained that the victim was already seeing the chiropractor; therefore, the services she received after the accident were only relating to a condition that was already present before the accident.

The medical fees awarded covered the victim’s chiropractic visits for the entire twenty-eight month period in which she was treated. The general damages were a much larger sum; however, the Court of Appeals decided that those damages still needed to be increased from the amount that the trial court awarded.

General Damages vs. Special Damages: Understanding the Difference

General damages are used to compensate the victim for pain and suffering. This type of damages is difficult to quantify; they “involve mental or physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification or physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or life-style which cannot be definitely measured in monetary terms.” In this case, the victim, who traveled frequently for work, could not travel in her vehicle for more than an hour, had trouble lifting things, and getting in and out of her car became increasingly difficult. She also complained that she had trouble doing normal housework, which strained the relationships in her family over time. Obviously, the victim’s life-style changed significantly.

How the Court Uses “Quantum Research” to Value Your Claim

The appeals court ruled that it made little sense that the lower court would award medical expenses for the entire twenty-eight month period but would award general damages for pain and suffering for only seven months after the accident. The court wanted to correct this inconsistency. In order to make this correction, the court needed to determine what a reasonable amount of damages for this type of injury would be. The court looked to past cases where the victim suffered a similar accident and similar injuries. Once it found such a case, it can use it as a range of possible damage awards.

The Court of Appeals increased the general damages from $20,000 to at least $43,000. The medical expenses awarded stayed at $6,458. In addition, the plaintiff attempted to get monetary damages for future medical expenses, but there was some confusion as to whether the victim would actually need any future medical care, so the court did not award damages for this purpose.

The court has this much-generalized process to determine damages in order to provide some structure in how victims are awarded money after they are injured. A competent attorney can help victims walk through the court’s process.

As this appellate ruling shows, trial courts often make mistakes—awarding medical bills for two years of treatment while only paying for seven months of pain. Correcting these inconsistencies requires an attorney who knows how to perform ‘Quantum Research’—comparing your specific injuries to decades of Louisiana case law. If you feel your settlement offer doesn’t reflect the true impact on your lifestyle, contact the Berniard Law Firm today for a comprehensive case evaluation.