$95,000 Settlement After Severe Car Accident in Manchester, NH, With Significant Treatment Gap

In this Manchester personal injury car accident case, Apis Law was retained only three days before the statute of limitations expired. The police report clearly established the other driver’s fault; however, the client faced a significant obstacle: a 1.5-year gap in medical treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite severe spinal injuries and ongoing symptoms, the absence of continuous medical documentation created a major causation challenge. By strategically leveraging expert testimony and an uncompromising litigation posture, the firm secured a $95,000 settlement for the client after filing suit in Manchester, New Hampshire.

This case highlights the importance of swift legal action in car accident personal injury cases, thorough development of causation, and a trial-ready approach when insurers attempt to exploit treatment gaps to undervalue claims.

Case Overview

The client was a New Hampshire resident injured in a motor vehicle collision in Manchester, NH. The crash resulted in severe musculoskeletal injuries that significantly limited day-to-day function. Although the police report placed liability squarely on the other driver, the client faced considerable challenges by the time the firm was contacted. Treatment had stalled mainly during the pandemic, and no counsel had been involved to preserve evidence, document ongoing symptoms, or guide the claim during the two-year limitations period.

Apis Law took over the matter with only 72 hours remaining before the statute of limitations expired—a situation that required immediate action, urgent file reconstruction, and an accelerated litigation plan.

Key Facts and Background

The car accident occurred in Manchester when another driver ran a stop sign and struck the client’s vehicle with substantial force, causing a collision with a telephone pole. Emergency responders documented the mechanism of injury, and the responding police officer issued an unambiguous finding of liability.

The client was rushed to the emergency room and reported significant pain. Physicians identified torn spinal tissue, fractured ribs, and a concussion. However, the COVID-19 pandemic created substantial barriers to ongoing medical care. Elective appointments were limited, providers shifted to telehealth, and many patients, particularly those managing chronic pain, experienced long gaps in treatment because in-person care was unavailable or unsafe.

By the time the firm filed suit, the client had received limited follow-up care and had experienced a lapse of more than 1.5 years in documented treatment. Although symptoms continued throughout that period, there was no formal medical documentation linking the ongoing limitations to the crash.

The insurance carrier quickly seized on this gap, arguing that any continuing symptoms must have been unrelated, degenerative, or caused by intervening events.

Legal Issues and Challenges: Car Accident in Manchester with Significant Treatment Gap

This case presented several significant legal hurdles:

Treatment Gap and Causation

A 1.5-year gap in care is one of the most potent tools insurers use to reduce case value. They argue that:

• The plaintiff must not have been truly injured, or

• The condition must have resolved and later recurred for reasons unrelated to the initial episode.

Under New Hampshire law, causation must be proven by a reasonable medical probability. Without clear documentation, this becomes a central battleground.

Limited Time Before Statute of Limitations

With only three days remaining, there was no opportunity for traditional pre-suit negotiation. The defense was immediately positioned to argue procedural missteps, claim abandonment, or argue that the documentation was inadequate.

COVID-Era Disruption as a Double-Edged Sword

While pandemic disruption explained the treatment gap, insurers increasingly treat COVID-related delays as weak excuses rather than legitimate medical barriers. Establishing credibility required a strong factual narrative and medical support.

Aggressive Defense Posture

Once litigation began, the defense leaned heavily on:

• Absence of consistent treatment

• Absence of active complaints over long periods

• sSpeculation about alternative causes

• Efforts to frame the injury as minor or resolved

This was a classic causation attack designed to reduce settlement value, especially when limited pre-injury medical records were available.

Strategy and Litigation Approach

Attorney Diaz moved quickly to preserve the client’s rights, filing the complaint before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Once the suit was filed, the firm built the case through a structured, trial-oriented strategy:

Reconstruction of the Medical Timeline

The firm worked with the client and all treating providers to recreate a clear chronological medical history showing:

• The initial severity

• The restrictions imposed by COVID on follow-up care

• The continuity of symptoms despite lapses in documented treatment

  
  

This timeline was crucial in countering the defense narrative.

Retaining a Medical Expert to Reestablish Causation

Because of the prolonged gap, expert testimony became indispensable. The retained expert performed a full review of:

• The mechanism of injury

• Imaging studies

• Symptom progression

• The plausibility of uninterrupted pain despite limited medical visits

The expert issued a written opinion connecting the chronic condition to the collision within a reasonable degree of medical probability, precisely the standard required under New Hampshire law.

Building a Compelling Narrative

The case required more than medical records. The firm supplemented the evidentiary record with:

• The client’s functional limitations

• Family and coworker observations

• Documentation of daily pain and adaptive strategies

• Detailed explanation of the unique COVID-era barriers that prevented normal treatment

This narrative transformed what the defense labeled a “gap” into a medically and socially explainable reality.

Trial-Ready Posture

The insurer assumed the case would resolve quickly due to the treatment gap. Instead, Apis Law signaled readiness for trial:

• refusing low-value settlement offers

• pushing discovery forward

• preparing for expert disclosures early

• making clear that causation was fully supported and would be presented to a jury

By eliminating any expectation of a discount, the firm positioned the case for a substantial settlement.

Outcome and Resolution

After a period of litigation and sustained pressure, the defense reevaluated the risk. The insurer ultimately agreed to pay $95,000 to resolve the claim.

This occurred only after:

• The medical expert’s causation opinion was disclosed, and

• It became clear that the firm was prepared to try the case before a jury in Manchester.

Once the trial posture became unmistakable, the defense shifted from a causation-attack strategy to a risk-management strategy, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.

Past outcomes do not guarantee future results. Each case depends on its unique facts, injuries, and legal issues.

What This Case Means for New Hampshire Clients

This case illustrates several important lessons for personal injury claimants in New Hampshire:

1. A treatment gap does not necessarily mean a case is lost. Insurance companies rely heavily on the absence of documentation; however, gaps—especially those created during the COVID era—can be overcome with expert testimony and a well-built record.

2. Late retention is risky but recoverable. Even when counsel is retained on the eve of the statute of limitations, an organized and aggressive litigation team can preserve the claim and rebuild the file.

3. Insurers exploit documentation weaknesses. They will argue causation at every opportunity. The right expert and trial strategy can neutralize those arguments.

4. Trial readiness increases settlement value. When the defense believes a plaintiff’s firm will not back down, settlement numbers rise accordingly.

5. Legal counsel makes a concrete difference. Without expert support and litigation pressure, the insurer would likely have offered a significantly lower amount than the final recovery.

How Our Firm Handles Cases Like This

Apis Law approaches personal injury cases with the same disciplined trial-oriented strategy used in complex civil litigation. Whether the case begins with a detailed medical file or must be rebuilt under pressure, the firm conducts a thorough investigation, engages qualified experts, and maintains open communication with clients throughout the process.

The firm regularly handles cases in Manchester, Goffstown, Bedford, and throughout Hillsborough County. When insurers rely on weak causation arguments, treatment gaps, or procedural technicalities, the firm responds with assertive motion practice, comprehensive discovery, and a willingness to take the case to trial when necessary.

If you or someone you know has been injured in New Hampshire and needs experienced counsel, you can contact Apis Law for a consultation.

These results are based on the specific facts of this case. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney–client relationship.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)