Properly litigating a personal injury case to ensure our clients complete and total recovery of losses is always the first and foremost priority of the experienced personal injury and medical malpractice attorneys at Powell, Zero, Mundy. If you require legal counsel and assistance in litigating a claim for damages resulting from a personal injury, contact Powell, Zero, Mundy. We are experienced in fighting insurance companies to assert the rights of our clients.

When retained to defend a personal injury lawsuit, one of the initial actions a knowledgeable personal injury defense lawyer undertakes is to request, through the discovery process, information about any prior personal injury lawsuits in which the plaintiff was, or is still presently, a litigating party.

Defense attorneys typically will present certain arguments using evidence of any and all prior previous litigation involving the plaintiff. The defendant naturally wants to reduce any award of damages in the present case. Where past personal injury lawsuits have been repeatedly filed by the same plaintiff, defense arguments, such as the following, may hinder a pending personal injury case:

Plaintiff’s Litigation History

The typical argument is that the plaintiff has a litigation history of filing numerous, even sometimes frivolous lawsuits. That plaintiff’s goals in filing lawsuits and pursuing claims for personal injury are solely monetary. The defense may argue that the current lawsuit was filed simply because the plaintiff profited in past filings.

Plaintiff’s Current Injuries Weren’t Caused by the Current Accident

The defense may argue the injuries related to the current accident were caused in whole by a prior event or accident. Alternatively, that a past condition has been aggravated by the new accident, and the current event and the new defendant are not responsible for causing all of the presently suffered injuries.

If two events or lawsuits are closely proximate in time to each other, the defense may make some factual connection between them in an attempt to establish the preexisting nature of any harm suffered for any bodily injuries that are similar. It will also quickly point out any factual connection between the defendants in both suits, especially if they are one and the same. Please see Friday’s blog for part 2.