Degenerative MRI After a Car Crash in Colorado | Conduit Law

A few weeks after a crash, an MRI report comes back, and somewhere near the bottom is the word degenerative. Soon after, the other driver's insurer points to that word as proof that your neck or back problem was there before the collision. If that has happened to you, the claim is not over. Degenerative findings are common in adults who have no pain at all, and Colorado law allows recovery when a crash makes an existing condition worse. This guide is about reading the radiology report itself: what the impression line says and does not say, why "degenerative" is not the same as "not caused by the crash," and what a record that proves aggravation looks like. For what disc injury claims tend to be worth, see our post on herniated disc settlements. For the medical question of whether a crash can cause a disc injury, see whether a car accident can cause a bulging disc. Our car accident practice page explains how we handle these files.

Our position: a word on an MRI report is a description of an image, not a conclusion about what caused it. The medical history decides that question, and it is usually the part of the file that needs the most work.

Teardown: the MRI impression line an adjuster reads first

The single most influential paragraph in many crash injury files is the impression section at the bottom of an MRI report. It is two to five lines written by a radiologist who has usually never met the patient, and adjusters, defense medical examiners, and juries often read it before anything else. A radiologist describes what the images show. The radiologist is not asked whether a car crash caused it, so the report uses neutral, anatomic language that can be read either way. Here is a typical cervical impression for a 44-year-old after a rear-end crash, with what each phrase does and does not mean. It is the same report, line by line, the way we read it with clients when an adjuster's evaluation leans on a single word. The point is not to argue with the radiologist. It is to separate what the image shows from what someone else concludes it means.

1. "C5-6 broad-based disc protrusion with mild left foraminal narrowing." A protrusion is a disc that extends beyond its normal border. Left foraminal narrowing means less room where the left C6 nerve root exits, which can line up with left arm numbness if the patient reports it. That match between the image and the exam is the heart of a disc claim.
2. "Disc desiccation at C5-6 and C6-7." The disc has lost some water content. It is common with age and is the phrase most often quoted as proof of "pre-existing degeneration." By itself it does not explain new radiating symptoms.
3. "No acute osseous abnormality." No fracture or bone bruise. It means the bones are not broken. It does not mean the disc or soft tissue is uninjured, though it is often read that way.
4. "Findings may be degenerative in nature. Clinical correlation recommended." Standard radiologist hedging. "Clinical correlation" asks the treating physician to compare the image with the patient's symptoms and history, and that comparison is exactly what a causation opinion should contain.

Disc herniation: the fight over "degenerative"

Disc injuries are where crash claims are most often won or lost, and the reason is usually that one word on the MRI report. Spinal discs change with age, and imaging studies of people with no back pain find those changes constantly. A 2015 systematic review in the American Journal of Neuroradiology reported disc degeneration in 37% of pain-free 20-year-olds and 96% of pain-free 80-year-olds. So an adjuster reading "degenerative disc disease" may argue that the crash revealed an old problem rather than caused a new one. The response is a timeline. If the person had no neck or back treatment for years before the crash, developed radiating arm or leg symptoms afterward, and then responded to targeted treatment at the same level the MRI flags, that sequence is strong evidence that the crash caused or worsened the condition. Two people can have identical MRI images and very different claims, because the image cannot say when the finding began or whether it hurt before.

It also helps to know what an MRI usually cannot do. Most disc findings cannot be dated from the image alone, and a radiologist reading a single post-crash study generally has nothing to compare it with. A prior MRI, if one exists, can change the analysis in either direction, so it is worth finding out early whether one was ever taken.

What a strong causation record looks like

Because the MRI cannot date most disc findings, causation in Colorado crash cases is usually proven through the treating physician, not the radiologist. A strong record has four pieces. First, prior medical records, ideally covering several years, showing no complaints or treatment for the same area before the crash. Second, a symptom timeline that starts at or shortly after the collision, recorded in the ER or urgent care note rather than reconstructed months later. Third, an exam that matches the image, such as reduced reflexes or numbness in the distribution of the nerve the MRI shows is narrowed. Fourth, a written opinion from the treating physician that, more likely than not, the crash caused or aggravated the condition and the treatment was reasonable and necessary. When the other side requests an independent medical examination under C.R.C.P. 35, that treating-physician opinion is what stands against the examiner's report, which is why we ask for it before a demand goes out. A gap in care weakens every one of these pieces, as our post on treatment gaps explains.

Pre-existing conditions and the aggravation rule

Many people with a prior back problem assume a new crash claim is hopeless. Colorado law does not work that way. A person who causes a crash generally takes the injured person as they find them, a principle explained in our post on the eggshell skull rule. Colorado allows damages for the aggravation of a pre-existing condition, meaning the worsening the crash caused, though not for the condition as it already existed. The legal question is not "did this person have degeneration?" It is "what changed after the collision?" A person whose old low-back strain was quiet for three years and who now needs injections has an aggravation claim. A person who was already in active treatment for the same pain the week before has a harder one, but may still have a claim for measurable worsening. What hurts these files most is inconsistency, such as an intake form that denies prior problems when the records show otherwise. Disclose the history early, get the old records, and let the comparison make the case.

Other injuries, other reports

Not every crash injury turns on an MRI impression. Soft-tissue neck injuries often do not show on imaging at all, and the proof comes from exam findings and consistent treatment; see our post on whiplash injury settlement amounts. Concussions usually produce a normal CT scan, which says nothing about whether one happened; see our guide to mild traumatic brain injury after a car accident. Fractures and surgical scars raise different questions about future care and disfigurement; see scarring and disfigurement damages in Colorado.

Colorado also limits some noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, under C.R.S. § 13-21-102.5. Which limit applies depends on dates in your case, so it is worth confirming with a lawyer rather than relying on a single published figure.

When a "degenerative" finding may not need a lawyer

Not every crash injury needs a lawyer, even one with "degenerative" on the report. If you were sore for a week or two, saw a doctor once or twice, fully recovered, and the at-fault driver's insurer accepted liability, the claim is usually small enough to handle directly. Colorado requires drivers to carry minimum bodily injury liability coverage under C.R.S. § 10-4-620, and a short, fully resolved claim often settles within it. Check your own policy for medical payments coverage: Colorado auto policies include at least $5,000 of it under C.R.S. § 10-4-635 unless the named insured rejected it in writing. And do not sign a release until treatment is complete. The picture changes when symptoms radiate into an arm or leg, when imaging, injections, or surgery enter the chart, when an adjuster cites "degenerative" to deny treatment, or when the injury affects your ability to work. Our post on whether to get a lawyer after a car accident walks through that decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does "degenerative" on my MRI mean the crash did not cause my pain?

No. "Degenerative" describes how a finding looks, not when it started or whether it hurt before. Degenerative changes are common in adults with no symptoms. Whether the crash caused or worsened your condition is answered by your medical history and your treating physician, not by the word alone.

Can I still recover if my MRI says "degenerative"?

Often, yes. Colorado law allows damages for the aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The key evidence is a clean prior treatment history, symptoms that start after the crash, an exam that matches the image, and a treating physician's opinion connecting them.

What does "clinical correlation recommended" mean?

It is a note from the radiologist asking the treating doctor to compare the images with your symptoms and exam. It is not a finding against you. A treating physician's correlation of the MRI with your symptoms is often the most important document in a disc claim.

Should I get my old medical records if I had back problems before?

Yes. The insurer will usually find them anyway, and records showing a long quiet period before the crash can support an aggravation claim. Being upfront about prior problems protects your credibility.

How long do I have to file a car accident injury lawsuit in Colorado?

Generally three years from the crash under C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(n). Claims against a government entity require written notice within 182 days under C.R.S. § 24-10-109, so a crash involving a city vehicle or a road-design issue needs attention much sooner.

---

This article is general information about Colorado law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Medical descriptions are general and are not a substitute for advice from your treating physician. The MRI impression above is an illustrative example, not a client's report. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Talk with a licensed Colorado attorney about the facts of your situation.

If an adjuster is pointing at the word "degenerative," Denver injury lawyers at Conduit Law can walk through your records with you.