A spinal stenosis back injury describes a condition in which traumatic injury actually causes, or is perceived to cause, spinal canal or foraminal narrowing. Back and spine injury are never a casual matters, since severe traumas can enact lasting and disabling pain syndromes in many patients. However, it is crucial to know that the body’s main imperative is to heal, and heal it will, except in the most dire of injurious conditions. Some severe injuries can definitely cause or contribute to spinal stenosis, while others may be coincidental to preexisting stenosis conditions due to congenital canal narrowing or normal degenerative processes.
This essay profiles the relationship between traumatic back or spine injury and the incidence of spinal canal stenosis.
Spinal Stenosis Back Injury Events
Back injury can take many forms, ranging from minor and inconsequential to extreme and potentially lethal. The most commonly experienced forms of injury occur to the muscles and ligaments of the back and not to the spinal structures themselves.
More severe or focused traumas may cause spinal injury, such as herniated discs or fractured vertebrae. The most extreme types of injury occur to the spinal nerves and the actual spinal cord. Any injury to a disc or vertebral bone may enact the right circumstances for central canal or neuroforaminal stenosis to occur virtually anywhere in the spine.
Some of the most common sources of said injuries include whiplash events, such as those suffered during car accidents and slip and fall scenarios.
Back Injury Causing Stenosis
I usually get letters about how back injury may or may not cause spinal stenosis in relation to lawsuits. As a former trial preparation investigator in NYC, I am well versed in understanding how the legal system uses and abuses medical information to bolster and discredit legal cases. Truthfully, the entire process sickens me, since so many who deserve due compensation never receive it, while gutter-dwelling, bottom-feeding plaintiff lawyers bring some cases through the system successfully, based completely on lies and medical mythology. I am happy to be out of this industry and feel it needs a major overhaul in the way injuries are perceived and processed under the law, but I digress. My comments on the legal ramifications of spinal stenosis based on injury are super simple: Tell the truth. Hire an honest lawyer and an honest doctor.
Sure, some injuries do cause or contribute to stenosis and other lasting pain syndromes. If this is your situation, then so be it. Hopefully, you will get what you deserve, although I am sure you would rather have your life back, compared to all the money in the world. If there is evidence of a congenital issue or degenerative condition causing stenosis prior to the accident, disclose it and let the court decide.
Fraudulent plaintiffs and their unethical lawyers who try to sue their way to wealth at the expense of the integrity of our legal system, and the financial expense of the rest of the world, deserve penalties far exceeding what currently exist. Disbarment? Prison? That is a good start.
Spinal Stenosis Back Injury Experiences
In my experience, specific injury is difficult to quantify as a source of stenosis in many cases. Sure, when prior imaging studies exist and show a perfect canal and then the post-injury imaging shows incredible damage and change, it is an open and shut case. However, most people do not have before and after accident imaging for comparative analysis and may have mild to moderate stenotic change before the incident occurred. Since these conditions are rarely symptomatic, their existence went unnoticed until the accident brought them to light. Most are still not the sources of pain, but in some cases, may be.
In many situations, the power of the trauma alone, the nocebo effect of the diagnosis and the undo influence of often evil lawyers and their puppet doctors cause the pain; not the structural issues involved. Remember this after you have the money, but can’t get rid of the constant agony.
This article is not a blanket statement that all plaintiff lawyers are thieves, or that no injuries cause pain, so please do not interpret it that way. It is just a comment that many injuries may be coincidental to mild or moderate stenosis, a statistical fact, and that many lawyers will exploit this mostly for their own financial benefit.