November 6, 2025 • 15 mins
For Colbert Court, Attorney Glenn Klausman brings us the case of Dennis, who is 65-years-old, and in 2018 his car was hit from behind where he suffered neck and back injuries. Fast forward to 2025 and he gets rear ended again, and now he has much worse neck pain and back pain. But neither his own or the other driver's insurance company will pay his medical bills.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Welcome back to the Jim Colberg Show, Real Radio one
oh four point one. Check is your four o'clock keyword?
That's c H G c K. Just slide over to
Reel Radio dot FM and send them off for your
chance on one thousand bucks.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Check is the word. I'm Jim.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
There's dead Jack is here as well, a lah. Let's
do Colberg Court when you are listening to is reel well?
Sort of? The participants are not actors as a fact.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
This is, however, a real case that will be decided
here in our forum, not Colberg Court.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Colbert Court brought to you about good for Glynn Cosman
and Klausman Law. That's k l e us m an
Law dot com offices right there. And wonder part four
oh seven nine one seven seventeen eighteen car crash cal
Klasman guys, good loud for mister Glenn clawsban Ell.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Yay, thank you for the junior men's.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yeah those are interesting, aren't they?
Speaker 4 (00:58):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (00:59):
How you doing, buddy? So you had a really big
crowd for Halloween? H we did. That's good, Bigger than
we had in years.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
I don't know why it just happened, And I'm glad
I had a lot of a lot of candy to
give out.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Yeah, you brought over the Oreo by Oreos. That's kind
of a that's a unique I have. You know, we
talked about the Halloween candy thing a couple of times.
Nobody mentioned like handing out single serving oreos.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Well, I think there's doubles in each one of these, man. Yeah,
but each one has a different design, like a Christmas
design and has a red filling.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
That's kind of cool. I've even heard of getting out
oreos for Halloween.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
What a good idea. You know.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
We had like a basket of stuff out and kids
were picking out the Oreos and picking out the Pirates booty.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
I'll be damn tasty what they like. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Glenn Closman is a personal injury attorney here in Central
Florida specializing in car accidents. Uh. I've been doing it
for quite a while. Part of that was a legal
elite and one of the other things you do there,
buddy super lawyer, all the fun stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Yeah, he's the lawyer other lawyer's call the case they
can't figure out out, and what he does he brings
a case into us every week. These are usually cases
that he's litigating or about to litigate. We'll read the case,
we'll kind of go over with our with the show members,
we'll try to figure out what should happen. Then we'll
get over to Glenn so that he could tell us
exactly what will happen or what he thinks will happen.
These are always good because it gives people kind of
(02:17):
an insight and how insurance companies work and think. It
also gives you an insight on what you should be
doing in the case of a car accident and in
steps you should take and steps maybe you should avoid taking. Also,
he is important, right, that's true. Is this a case
you have you're litigating right now? This is something very
similar to what we have?
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Really, all right, very good. Let's get to it you guys ready, Ye,
let's do it.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Here we go.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Dennis is sixty five years old and in twenty eighteen,
his car was hit from behind. He had neck and
back whiplash type injuries. He had MRI scans of his
neck and back After the twenty eighteen accident. He saw
doctors for about eighteen months and then stop getting treatment
because he felt that he was as good as he
was going to get fast forward to twenty twenty five.
(02:59):
Just a few years later, he gets rear ended again
and now he has much worse neck and back pain.
He gets a new MRI that does not show much
difference from the twenty eighteen scans other than the discs
between the vertebrae and his neck and low back that
were injured in twenty eighteen have more deterioration. All right,
So no new injuries. The MRI just showed that the
(03:21):
older injuries maybe just deteriorated a little bit too much
or a little bit more. Dennis made a claim to
his own insurance company under his uninsured motors coverage because
the vehicle that caused the crash had no insurance to
pay for his injuries. His own insurance company offered him
less than his unpaid medical bills as a settlement and
(03:44):
said Dennis did not prove he has any new injury
from the twenty twenty five collision. What do you do
to help Dennis?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Wow? What a good case.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Yeah, this is you know, we're seeing a lot more
of this. I don't know if I'm the canary in
the coal mine, but more and more I am seeing
car accidents where people don't have insurance to pay for
other people's injuries. And I think it's the economy. Yeah,
it has to be, you know, and it's people who
have changed their insurance coverage to cut back on that.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
And just another reason that you should update or make
sure you have uninsured motorists. You make a very good point.
When the economy goes bad, people cut back on stuff
they think is you know, not necessary, and your insurance
doesn't pay your power bill or you know, doesn't doesn't
buy food or pay your mortgage, so that's usually one
of the first things to go and they just kind
of roll the dice out there. That's what's going on,
(04:32):
and things like this happen.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Sounds to me like he may have to sue his
own insurance company.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Yeah, he's sixty five, right, Well, the problem.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Is that he's The way I see it is he
stopped treatment of his own volition, so he wasn't released
by his doctor. He felt better, so he stopped seeking treatment.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Yeah, he saw doctors for eighteen months and then which
is which is a long ass time by.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
The way, right, They stopped in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
And he stopped he said he felt as good as
he was going to get. So he made his own
decision to end his medical care.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
And then the person who hit him doesn't have the insurance,
so he does the MRI. So this is more you
can see, you know, soft tissue injuries with an MRI
that you can't see through an X ray. And because
there is no new damage, you know, his insurance company
is going to say, well, this is clearly, you know,
an injury from the old accident, this isn't from the
new accident. We're not going to pay new medical bills.
(05:26):
So I think he's going to have to take his
insurance company to.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Court, all right, but six years later, So yeah, he
will have to take his insurance company to court with
a settlement of offer two thousand dollars. But the question
is what do you do as his lawyer now to
make sure he gets what's fair.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
And what No numbers are included here, so we don't
know how much money the difference is. Do we know?
Speaker 4 (05:48):
Yeah, he's probably out seven or eight thousand dollars right now,
and they offered him too, and he's got fifty thousand
and uninsured motors coverage, which we said that ranks would
look it's going to be fair.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
But if you can't prove that the accident in question
caused the injury, the insurance company would have a case
and not paying it. That's what they're saying, right right,
that's what you got to do.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
We've got to we've got to prove there's new damage
because of the new rear in collision.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
So he saw doctors for eighteen months stop getting treatment
because he felt that he was as good as he
was going to get. The new scan doesn't show any
new injuries. It just shows that the old injuries has
some deterioration that could also be causing the new pain.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
Right right, The discs have deteriorated work since the prior
MRI school.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Well, here's the question, though, how can they tell that
that's just simple deterioration and not from the accident. How
is that determination made?
Speaker 4 (06:43):
Right? That's their position, their position as well. It's just
the natural deterioration that's occurred six years earlier when you
had that other MRI, and that's just part part of
the progression you're at of luck, buddy, that's what they're saying.
Hold on for a set, because he was he having
pain before the accident. No, he stopt he felt it
was as good as it was going to get. And
now after this accident he has much worse neck pain
(07:05):
and much worse low back pain.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
But he never he never hordwort Se, He never stopped
having the pain. No, he just got as good as
it was going to get. But he was still dealing
with some pain.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Said he had a baseline amount of got it pain
every now and then, but now after this one boom,
it's bad all the time.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
So your orthopedic expert could come in and also say, well,
that is the position of this physician. Our expert sees
it as deterioration brought on by the wreck itself.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Well, it's it's that's an interesting question, and it's it's
something that a radiologist sometimes can say from analyzing the
MRI scans whether or not he thinks that's something new
or something that's just the progression of what was there before.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
But also what is undeniable is that the second accident
aggravated the situation where it is now worse than it
was before the act.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
That's kind of the point I was starting to make
it a second ago. I mean, I didn't know what
level of pain because they didn't really mention where he
thought he got himself to. If ten is perfect, did
he get himself to seven or eight or six?
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Yeah? No, he was having on and off intermittent pain.
He would do something and it'd flare up a little,
but he wouldn't even go to the doctor because it
wasn't that bad.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
No.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
My question is that, because we hear this a lot
in cases where someone is sixty five or older, does
agism come into play so much more when it's someone
sixty five and older in a car accident, Like, Oh, well,
that's just because they're sixty five. Oh well, they don't
really have that much life left. Oh well they're I mean,
there's kind of like this, this attitude of well they're
already old.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Who cares?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Yeah, that's that's that's a terrible thing to say. But
you know, from my perspective, you look at it. When
somebody has a spine that is now sixty five or older,
it has deteriorated normally, it's degenerated normally, and now it's
not as strong to withstand trauma as if it was
a twenty year old, a twenty five year old. We
(08:54):
use the analogy you take a green twig and you
bend it, it bends back. You take a brown twig
and you bend it in a break. And so the
analysis some folks use is when you get to a
certain point, you might have an eggshell back that it
doesn't take much to break that back, whereas if you
didn't have an eggshell back, you would with stand and
(09:14):
trauma without a problem.
Speaker 5 (09:16):
But he's still on the hook for that, isn't it
the case in Florida? Even if the the eggshell rule
is in effect and there's a pre existing condition that
they take the client as they find them and at
the point of the accident he is now injured beyond that.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Therefore they are on the hook.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
You're going to have to threaten.
Speaker 5 (09:34):
A lawsuit, but they're going to settle because they realize
you got them.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Well, that's the great points you make, Jack, great points.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
In Florida, the law is if you aggravate a pre
existing condition, you are liable for the extent of the
aggravation you caused.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
And that's one of the things we're going to argue here.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
So let me go back here first here because it
says here he had MRI scans of his neck and
back after the accident, but it doesn't say what the
results of this ca were. It just says that he
saw doctors for eighteen months afterwards and stop getting treatment.
Did the original MRI show damage to the same discs
that he's complaining.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Yeah, the original MRI showed bulges in those discs, and
now the subsequent MRI six years later is showing that
those bulges have deteriorated further. The disc or damage before
and now they've deteriorated further. And obviously one of the
questions is, as deb brings up, was it from this accident,
the trauma, that caused them to be worse or was
(10:30):
it just a natural progression that caused them to get there?
Speaker 2 (10:32):
And how can you tell that?
Speaker 4 (10:33):
It's difficult. I mean, it's a radiologist. One radiologist is
going to come in with an opinion saying, oh, well,
it's just normal deterioration, and another one is going to
come in and say, well, no, it doesn't look like
normal deterioration. And what you do is you don't just
look at the films. You look at the patient. And
the patient wasn't having a problem. He wasn't seeing any
doctors for six years, He didn't didn't see doctors, and
(10:55):
now he's got these problems and it's obviously it's from
a rear in collision, was damaged to the car.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
And that's kind of that was when I asked the
second ago. That was my exact point. My exact point
was is even if he decided that he was going
to get as good as you was a get because
he had eighteen months. So eighteen months is a pretty
good schedule of time to kind of figure out, well,
after nine or ten months, it ain't getting better, and
I'll go for a few more months and it's not
done anything well, and it's as good as it's going
(11:22):
to get. I improved to a certain point, and I
kept going and it wasn't going to any better from
that point.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Sure, yea.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
So my point being is there is no other evidence
than any that anything else could have caused the pain
that he's experiencing. Now, there's none. I mean, even with
the degeneration you like Devo was saying that could be
age related. So the and he lived a life six
years with and live with the pain, dealt with it,
didn't make a complaint, didn't go.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
To the hospital or anything, no doctor.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
The only thing that could possibly have aggravated this is
this accident? Correct, So how is that.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Ignorable to the court?
Speaker 1 (11:55):
In other words, if this is the only possible thing,
if he wasn't water skiing or roofing or anything like that,
that could have caused the accident, this is the obvious reason.
Why isn't the obvious reason applicable here?
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Because the insurance adjusters adjust claims in a way where
they say, we don't have to necessarily believe what the
person says. We want to see in black and white,
why it is the way it is. But we know
when black and white, he never went back to the hospital.
He did the eighteen months and for six years, he
didn't go back. He lived his life, He didn't complain,
he didn't try to make a claim or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Right, So the impact of the accident could be the
only thing.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
That caused this, Right, that's the argument.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
But yeah, so I mean, how could they possibly rule
against that?
Speaker 4 (12:38):
Well, because they say, where is the evidence? Where's the
hard evidence other than what this fellow says. Why do
we have to believe this fellow when he's just here
trying to get money for and actually was.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
In that's the argument.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
But we don't have a hospital record of him going
back and forth for treatments. Is it that the evidence?
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Well, that's what we have in our favor.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
But their position is prove to us that this accident caused,
this caused the injuries that are causing his pain and problems.
Now the argument is, you know, he might have just
decided that he didn't want to go back to the doctors,
and now he gets hit, and now there's more money
possible from his owner and promotors coverage, So now he's
going to try to cash in.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
That's what that's the argument the insurance industry makes. All right,
work close on time. I mean, what do you guys think.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
You think he's got a I think he's got a case.
I think he does.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
I think he has an arguable case, and I think
that he'll wind up getting satisfied deb eh clause.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
I'm on it.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely, he's got a case.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Yeah yeah, yep, yep. And I like Jack Jack hit
it pretty well on the head. It's the aggravation of
the pre existing condition that you're you're entitled money for Yeah,
yeah you're not. You weren't back to base you you
weren't baseline and now you're you're much worse. You got
a different baseline, and that's where that's where you're entitled conversation.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
For this really does is this a jury or a judge?
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Could be a jury case. It could be a jury case.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
This seems like something that a jury could really look
at and go, well, I mean, obviously that could you know,
So do you believe that the jury is going to
buy that? I mean to obviously buy that story that
that you know there is no other.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Injury other than the car accident. I mean that's what
you guys.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
Are leaning absolutely, And the other side will try to
investigate everything he's done in those years that might have
caused this problem and maybe he maybe he went out
boating and got you know, a back pain and neck
pain from boating and didn't do anything about it until boom,
this happens. Now he's trying to cash in. That's you know,
that's the kind of stuff that goes on. They dig
into the background trying to find some way something that
will they can hang their hat on to say to
(14:23):
a jury, look, this guy's just out for money.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
Don't believe them. And it comes down to the believability
to client.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Also, yeah, This is where your social media really comes
into play too. Absolutely absolutely skinning this guy's social media
like crazy looking for anything, ski trips. Absolutely right, it's
riding a motorcycle, doing you know, anything around the house,
diging a hole that matter?
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Does it yet our attorney is going to say that
is evidence that he did not have a problem and
his current injuries are all caused by the auto accident.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Hey, absolutely absolutely, Jack's right on. Very good man.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Give Jack a bell today, give yourself a bell, Jack,
good job. Yeah, dig it up, big guy, big gone,
good job to This is a great case matter. Last
two weeks has been really good. We got a lot
of texting reaction to this one today as well. That's good, yeah,
because people like, you know, here's the thing. This stuff happens,
and it's common sense stuff. But you know, common sense
sometimes should should prevail, right right right, Yeah, good job buddy.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
You has a good line for Glenn.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
What do you say on Oreos four seven nine one
six Again, that's Klosman Law k l A U, S
M A and Law dot com offices right there in
winter Park four oh seven nine one seven seven and
eighteen car crash called that gentleman, right, there, mister Glenn Clausman,
thanks so much. New keyword coming up for you right now,
and we're gonna talk to seb Hines from Orlando Pride
Welcome back to the Jim Colberg Show, Real Radio one
oh four point one. Check is your four o'clock keyword?
That's c H G c K. Just slide over to
Reel Radio dot FM and send them off for your
chance on one thousand bucks.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Check is the word. I'm Jim.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
There's dead Jack is here as well, a lah. Let's
do Colberg Court when you are listening to is reel well?
Sort of? The participants are not actors as a fact.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
This is, however, a real case that will be decided
here in our forum, not Colberg Court.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Colbert Court brought to you about good for Glynn Cosman
and Klausman Law. That's k l e us m an
Law dot com offices right there. And wonder part four
oh seven nine one seven seventeen eighteen car crash cal
Klasman guys, good loud for mister Glenn clawsban Ell.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Yay, thank you for the junior men's.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yeah those are interesting, aren't they?
Speaker 4 (00:58):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (00:59):
How you doing, buddy? So you had a really big
crowd for Halloween? H we did. That's good, Bigger than
we had in years.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
I don't know why it just happened, And I'm glad
I had a lot of a lot of candy to
give out.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Yeah, you brought over the Oreo by Oreos. That's kind
of a that's a unique I have. You know, we
talked about the Halloween candy thing a couple of times.
Nobody mentioned like handing out single serving oreos.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Well, I think there's doubles in each one of these, man. Yeah,
but each one has a different design, like a Christmas
design and has a red filling.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
That's kind of cool. I've even heard of getting out
oreos for Halloween.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
What a good idea. You know.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
We had like a basket of stuff out and kids
were picking out the Oreos and picking out the Pirates booty.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
I'll be damn tasty what they like. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Glenn Closman is a personal injury attorney here in Central
Florida specializing in car accidents. Uh. I've been doing it
for quite a while. Part of that was a legal
elite and one of the other things you do there,
buddy super lawyer, all the fun stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Yeah, he's the lawyer other lawyer's call the case they
can't figure out out, and what he does he brings
a case into us every week. These are usually cases
that he's litigating or about to litigate. We'll read the case,
we'll kind of go over with our with the show members,
we'll try to figure out what should happen. Then we'll
get over to Glenn so that he could tell us
exactly what will happen or what he thinks will happen.
These are always good because it gives people kind of
(02:17):
an insight and how insurance companies work and think. It
also gives you an insight on what you should be
doing in the case of a car accident and in
steps you should take and steps maybe you should avoid taking. Also,
he is important, right, that's true. Is this a case
you have you're litigating right now? This is something very
similar to what we have?
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Really, all right, very good. Let's get to it you guys ready, Ye,
let's do it.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Here we go.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Dennis is sixty five years old and in twenty eighteen,
his car was hit from behind. He had neck and
back whiplash type injuries. He had MRI scans of his
neck and back After the twenty eighteen accident. He saw
doctors for about eighteen months and then stop getting treatment
because he felt that he was as good as he
was going to get fast forward to twenty twenty five.
(02:59):
Just a few years later, he gets rear ended again
and now he has much worse neck and back pain.
He gets a new MRI that does not show much
difference from the twenty eighteen scans other than the discs
between the vertebrae and his neck and low back that
were injured in twenty eighteen have more deterioration. All right,
So no new injuries. The MRI just showed that the
(03:21):
older injuries maybe just deteriorated a little bit too much
or a little bit more. Dennis made a claim to
his own insurance company under his uninsured motors coverage because
the vehicle that caused the crash had no insurance to
pay for his injuries. His own insurance company offered him
less than his unpaid medical bills as a settlement and
(03:44):
said Dennis did not prove he has any new injury
from the twenty twenty five collision. What do you do
to help Dennis?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Wow? What a good case.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Yeah, this is you know, we're seeing a lot more
of this. I don't know if I'm the canary in
the coal mine, but more and more I am seeing
car accidents where people don't have insurance to pay for
other people's injuries. And I think it's the economy. Yeah,
it has to be, you know, and it's people who
have changed their insurance coverage to cut back on that.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
And just another reason that you should update or make
sure you have uninsured motorists. You make a very good point.
When the economy goes bad, people cut back on stuff
they think is you know, not necessary, and your insurance
doesn't pay your power bill or you know, doesn't doesn't
buy food or pay your mortgage, so that's usually one
of the first things to go and they just kind
of roll the dice out there. That's what's going on,
(04:32):
and things like this happen.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Sounds to me like he may have to sue his
own insurance company.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Yeah, he's sixty five, right, Well, the problem.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
Is that he's The way I see it is he
stopped treatment of his own volition, so he wasn't released
by his doctor. He felt better, so he stopped seeking treatment.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Yeah, he saw doctors for eighteen months and then which
is which is a long ass time by.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
The way, right, They stopped in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
And he stopped he said he felt as good as
he was going to get. So he made his own
decision to end his medical care.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
And then the person who hit him doesn't have the insurance,
so he does the MRI. So this is more you
can see, you know, soft tissue injuries with an MRI
that you can't see through an X ray. And because
there is no new damage, you know, his insurance company
is going to say, well, this is clearly, you know,
an injury from the old accident, this isn't from the
new accident. We're not going to pay new medical bills.
(05:26):
So I think he's going to have to take his
insurance company to.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Court, all right, but six years later, So yeah, he
will have to take his insurance company to court with
a settlement of offer two thousand dollars. But the question
is what do you do as his lawyer now to
make sure he gets what's fair.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
And what No numbers are included here, so we don't
know how much money the difference is. Do we know?
Speaker 4 (05:48):
Yeah, he's probably out seven or eight thousand dollars right now,
and they offered him too, and he's got fifty thousand
and uninsured motors coverage, which we said that ranks would
look it's going to be fair.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
But if you can't prove that the accident in question
caused the injury, the insurance company would have a case
and not paying it. That's what they're saying, right right,
that's what you got to do.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
We've got to we've got to prove there's new damage
because of the new rear in collision.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
So he saw doctors for eighteen months stop getting treatment
because he felt that he was as good as he
was going to get. The new scan doesn't show any
new injuries. It just shows that the old injuries has
some deterioration that could also be causing the new pain.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
Right right, The discs have deteriorated work since the prior
MRI school.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Well, here's the question, though, how can they tell that
that's just simple deterioration and not from the accident. How
is that determination made?
Speaker 4 (06:43):
Right? That's their position, their position as well. It's just
the natural deterioration that's occurred six years earlier when you
had that other MRI, and that's just part part of
the progression you're at of luck, buddy, that's what they're saying.
Hold on for a set, because he was he having
pain before the accident. No, he stopt he felt it
was as good as it was going to get. And
now after this accident he has much worse neck pain
(07:05):
and much worse low back pain.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
But he never he never hordwort Se, He never stopped
having the pain. No, he just got as good as
it was going to get. But he was still dealing
with some pain.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Said he had a baseline amount of got it pain
every now and then, but now after this one boom,
it's bad all the time.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
So your orthopedic expert could come in and also say, well,
that is the position of this physician. Our expert sees
it as deterioration brought on by the wreck itself.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Well, it's it's that's an interesting question, and it's it's
something that a radiologist sometimes can say from analyzing the
MRI scans whether or not he thinks that's something new
or something that's just the progression of what was there before.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
But also what is undeniable is that the second accident
aggravated the situation where it is now worse than it
was before the act.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
That's kind of the point I was starting to make
it a second ago. I mean, I didn't know what
level of pain because they didn't really mention where he
thought he got himself to. If ten is perfect, did
he get himself to seven or eight or six?
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Yeah? No, he was having on and off intermittent pain.
He would do something and it'd flare up a little,
but he wouldn't even go to the doctor because it
wasn't that bad.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
No.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
My question is that, because we hear this a lot
in cases where someone is sixty five or older, does
agism come into play so much more when it's someone
sixty five and older in a car accident, Like, Oh, well,
that's just because they're sixty five. Oh well, they don't
really have that much life left. Oh well they're I mean,
there's kind of like this, this attitude of well they're
already old.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Who cares?
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Yeah, that's that's that's a terrible thing to say. But
you know, from my perspective, you look at it. When
somebody has a spine that is now sixty five or older,
it has deteriorated normally, it's degenerated normally, and now it's
not as strong to withstand trauma as if it was
a twenty year old, a twenty five year old. We
(08:54):
use the analogy you take a green twig and you
bend it, it bends back. You take a brown twig
and you bend it in a break. And so the
analysis some folks use is when you get to a
certain point, you might have an eggshell back that it
doesn't take much to break that back, whereas if you
didn't have an eggshell back, you would with stand and
(09:14):
trauma without a problem.
Speaker 5 (09:16):
But he's still on the hook for that, isn't it
the case in Florida? Even if the the eggshell rule
is in effect and there's a pre existing condition that
they take the client as they find them and at
the point of the accident he is now injured beyond that.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Therefore they are on the hook.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
You're going to have to threaten.
Speaker 5 (09:34):
A lawsuit, but they're going to settle because they realize
you got them.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Well, that's the great points you make, Jack, great points.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
In Florida, the law is if you aggravate a pre
existing condition, you are liable for the extent of the
aggravation you caused.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
And that's one of the things we're going to argue here.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
So let me go back here first here because it
says here he had MRI scans of his neck and
back after the accident, but it doesn't say what the
results of this ca were. It just says that he
saw doctors for eighteen months afterwards and stop getting treatment.
Did the original MRI show damage to the same discs
that he's complaining.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Yeah, the original MRI showed bulges in those discs, and
now the subsequent MRI six years later is showing that
those bulges have deteriorated further. The disc or damage before
and now they've deteriorated further. And obviously one of the
questions is, as deb brings up, was it from this accident,
the trauma, that caused them to be worse or was
(10:30):
it just a natural progression that caused them to get there?
Speaker 2 (10:32):
And how can you tell that?
Speaker 4 (10:33):
It's difficult. I mean, it's a radiologist. One radiologist is
going to come in with an opinion saying, oh, well,
it's just normal deterioration, and another one is going to
come in and say, well, no, it doesn't look like
normal deterioration. And what you do is you don't just
look at the films. You look at the patient. And
the patient wasn't having a problem. He wasn't seeing any
doctors for six years, He didn't didn't see doctors, and
(10:55):
now he's got these problems and it's obviously it's from
a rear in collision, was damaged to the car.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
And that's kind of that was when I asked the
second ago. That was my exact point. My exact point
was is even if he decided that he was going
to get as good as you was a get because
he had eighteen months. So eighteen months is a pretty
good schedule of time to kind of figure out, well,
after nine or ten months, it ain't getting better, and
I'll go for a few more months and it's not
done anything well, and it's as good as it's going
(11:22):
to get. I improved to a certain point, and I
kept going and it wasn't going to any better from
that point.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Sure, yea.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
So my point being is there is no other evidence
than any that anything else could have caused the pain
that he's experiencing. Now, there's none. I mean, even with
the degeneration you like Devo was saying that could be
age related. So the and he lived a life six
years with and live with the pain, dealt with it,
didn't make a complaint, didn't go.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
To the hospital or anything, no doctor.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
The only thing that could possibly have aggravated this is
this accident? Correct, So how is that.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Ignorable to the court?
Speaker 1 (11:55):
In other words, if this is the only possible thing,
if he wasn't water skiing or roofing or anything like that,
that could have caused the accident, this is the obvious reason.
Why isn't the obvious reason applicable here?
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Because the insurance adjusters adjust claims in a way where
they say, we don't have to necessarily believe what the
person says. We want to see in black and white,
why it is the way it is. But we know
when black and white, he never went back to the hospital.
He did the eighteen months and for six years, he
didn't go back. He lived his life, He didn't complain,
he didn't try to make a claim or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Right, So the impact of the accident could be the
only thing.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
That caused this, Right, that's the argument.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
But yeah, so I mean, how could they possibly rule
against that?
Speaker 4 (12:38):
Well, because they say, where is the evidence? Where's the
hard evidence other than what this fellow says. Why do
we have to believe this fellow when he's just here
trying to get money for and actually was.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
In that's the argument.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
But we don't have a hospital record of him going
back and forth for treatments. Is it that the evidence?
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Well, that's what we have in our favor.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
But their position is prove to us that this accident caused,
this caused the injuries that are causing his pain and problems.
Now the argument is, you know, he might have just
decided that he didn't want to go back to the doctors,
and now he gets hit, and now there's more money
possible from his owner and promotors coverage, So now he's
going to try to cash in.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
That's what that's the argument the insurance industry makes. All right,
work close on time. I mean, what do you guys think.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
You think he's got a I think he's got a case.
I think he does.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
I think he has an arguable case, and I think
that he'll wind up getting satisfied deb eh clause.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
I'm on it.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely, he's got a case.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Yeah yeah, yep, yep. And I like Jack Jack hit
it pretty well on the head. It's the aggravation of
the pre existing condition that you're you're entitled money for Yeah,
yeah you're not. You weren't back to base you you
weren't baseline and now you're you're much worse. You got
a different baseline, and that's where that's where you're entitled conversation.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
For this really does is this a jury or a judge?
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Could be a jury case. It could be a jury case.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
This seems like something that a jury could really look
at and go, well, I mean, obviously that could you know,
So do you believe that the jury is going to
buy that? I mean to obviously buy that story that
that you know there is no other.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Injury other than the car accident. I mean that's what
you guys.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
Are leaning absolutely, And the other side will try to
investigate everything he's done in those years that might have
caused this problem and maybe he maybe he went out
boating and got you know, a back pain and neck
pain from boating and didn't do anything about it until boom,
this happens. Now he's trying to cash in. That's you know,
that's the kind of stuff that goes on. They dig
into the background trying to find some way something that
will they can hang their hat on to say to
(14:23):
a jury, look, this guy's just out for money.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
Don't believe them. And it comes down to the believability
to client.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Also, yeah, This is where your social media really comes
into play too. Absolutely absolutely skinning this guy's social media
like crazy looking for anything, ski trips. Absolutely right, it's
riding a motorcycle, doing you know, anything around the house,
diging a hole that matter?
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Does it yet our attorney is going to say that
is evidence that he did not have a problem and
his current injuries are all caused by the auto accident.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Hey, absolutely absolutely, Jack's right on. Very good man.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Give Jack a bell today, give yourself a bell, Jack,
good job. Yeah, dig it up, big guy, big gone,
good job to This is a great case matter. Last
two weeks has been really good. We got a lot
of texting reaction to this one today as well. That's good, yeah,
because people like, you know, here's the thing. This stuff happens,
and it's common sense stuff. But you know, common sense
sometimes should should prevail, right right right, Yeah, good job buddy.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
You has a good line for Glenn.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
What do you say on Oreos four seven nine one
six Again, that's Klosman Law k l A U, S
M A and Law dot com offices right there in
winter Park four oh seven nine one seven seven and
eighteen car crash called that gentleman, right, there, mister Glenn Clausman,
thanks so much. New keyword coming up for you right now,
and we're gonna talk to seb Hines from Orlando Pride
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.