Can New Hampshire insurers deny my Portsmouth rideshare injury claim because of an old MRI?

Q: Can New Hampshire insurers deny my Portsmouth rideshare injury claim because of an old MRI?

The insurer will tell you your pain is "pre-existing" and not their problem. Do not let that frame the claim. What is actually true in New Hampshire is that an at-fault driver is responsible for aggravating a prior condition, not just causing a brand-new injury. If a Portsmouth rideshare crash turned an old back issue into a thoracic spine fracture, triggered worse symptoms, or set off something like complex regional pain syndrome, the claim is still valid. The fight is usually over how much the crash worsened you, not whether you had a perfectly clean medical history before. Insurance adjusters often weaponize an old MRI, prior PT records, or earlier complaints to argue "you were already hurt." They do that because it can cut the payout fast if you miss the chance to lock down proof now. What matters right now is evidence that shows your before-and-after condition: the ER records from right after the crash your rideshare trip receipt and app screenshots any Portsmouth Police report or witness names prior records showing you were stable, working, driving, or functioning before this wreck follow-up records that connect the new symptoms to the sudden stop, impact, or jolt Because this was a rideshare trip, coverage may come from the rideshare company's policy, the rideshare driver's insurer, the other driver's insurer, or more than one at once. New Hampshire is not a no-fault state, so fault still matters. Do not wait on this. New Hampshire's general deadline for most injury lawsuits is 3 years under RSA 508:4, but evidence disappears long before that. Back-to-school crashes around Portsmouth school zones and bus stops can also create quick disputes over who braked, who was distracted, and whose policy was active at the moment of impact. If an adjuster keeps leaning on your old MRI, the legal question is usually aggravation, not elimination of the claim.

Question

Accepted Answer

The insurer will tell you your pain is &#34;pre-existing&#34; and not their problem. Do not let that frame the claim. What is actually true in New Hampshire is that an at-fault driver is responsible for aggravating a prior condition, not just causing a brand-new injury. If a Portsmouth rideshare crash turned an old back issue into a thoracic spine fracture, triggered worse symptoms, or set off something like complex regional pain syndrome, the claim is still valid. The fight is usually over how much the crash worsened you, not whether you had a perfectly clean medical history before. Insurance adjusters often weaponize an old MRI, prior PT records, or earlier complaints to argue &#34;you were already hurt.&#34; They do that because it can cut the payout fast if you miss the chance to lock down proof now. What matters right now is evidence that shows your before-and-after condition: the ER records from right after the crash your rideshare trip receipt and app screenshots any Portsmouth Police report or witness names prior records showing you were stable, working, driving, or functioning before this wreck follow-up records that connect the new symptoms to the sudden stop, impact, or jolt Because this was a rideshare trip, coverage may come from the rideshare company's policy, the rideshare driver's insurer, the other driver's insurer, or more than one at once. New Hampshire is not a no-fault state, so fault still matters. Do not wait on this. New Hampshire's general deadline for most injury lawsuits is 3 years under RSA 508:4, but evidence disappears long before that. Back-to-school crashes around Portsmouth school zones and bus stops can also create quick disputes over who braked, who was distracted, and whose policy was active at the moment of impact. If an adjuster keeps leaning on your old MRI, the legal question is usually aggravation, not elimination of the claim.