If the MRI shows nerve damage and the insurance company's IME doctor says "normal exam" or "nothing objective," that does not wipe out the injury.

It means the fight has started.

For an EMT in New Bedford, this gets brutal fast. This is somebody who lifts patients, braces stretchers on uneven curbs, bends in the back of a moving rig, and works through overnight calls when the fog rolls in off Buzzards Bay and roads around Route 18 and the Hathaway Road area get slick and nasty. If childbirth left her with nerve pain, numbness, weakness, burning down the leg, foot drop, or bladder symptoms after a botched epidural injection, the question is not whether she can "push through it." The question is whether she can safely do the only job she knows.

And the insurance side knows that.

The old MRI trick is one of their favorite games

Here's what most people don't realize: insurers love your old records more than your new symptoms.

If you had back pain before pregnancy, an old lumbar MRI, a note about sciatica from years ago, or even a couple of urgent care visits after lifting a patient on shift, they will act like the case is over. They will say your spine was already a mess. They will say childbirth just happened to happen around the same time.

That's convenient bullshit.

Massachusetts law does not let a defendant off the hook just because you had a vulnerable back before the injury. If the epidural injection caused a new injury, or made an existing condition materially worse, that aggravation still counts. That's the basic idea behind the eggshell plaintiff rule. You take the patient as you find her. A person with a touchy back is not fair game for a bad procedure.

So if an anesthesiologist misplaced the needle, caused nerve trauma, created a hematoma, triggered arachnoiditis, or led to objective neurological changes that were not there before, the fact that an older MRI showed degeneration does not hand the insurer a free win.

Why the IME doctor so often says nothing is wrong

An IME is usually not "independent" in any real-world sense.

It is an exam arranged by the other side, often done once, quickly, by a doctor who is not treating you and who may barely care what your life looks like after the exam. For an EMT, that matters. A five-minute office exam can miss what happens when you squat, pivot, carry, climb into the ambulance, or stand for twelve hours.

This is how they twist it. The IME report may say:

• MRI findings are "degenerative"
• complaints are "subjective"
• exam is "inconsistent"
• no surgical recommendation means no serious injury
• symptoms are related to a prior condition, pregnancy itself, or anxiety

Meanwhile, the actual MRI may show a disc injury, nerve root impingement, scar tissue, or another objective change. Your treating neurologist, pain specialist, or physiatrist may be documenting weakness, sensory loss, reduced reflexes, abnormal EMG findings, or a pattern that started right after the epidural.

That gap is the whole case.

Timing matters more than the insurer wants to admit

In these cases, the timeline can be devastating for the defense if it's tight and well-documented.

If the EMT had no disabling leg symptoms before delivery, then immediately after the epidural developed shooting pain, numbness, weakness, saddle symptoms, or trouble walking, that sequence matters. If nurses' notes, labor and delivery records, anesthesia records, and postpartum complaints line up, that matters. If there was an MRI soon after and it shows something real, that matters.

The insurer will still try to muddy it up. They will blame the pregnancy. They will blame prior lifting injuries from EMS work. They will point to one old complaint from years back and pretend nothing changed.

But "had some back issues before" is not the same as "had this nerve injury before."

Those are two very different things.

For an EMT, the damages are bigger than a few missed shifts

This isn't just pain and suffering. It's job function.

Can she kneel beside a patient in a third-floor walk-up off Acushnet Avenue? Can she lift on a stair chair? Can she keep balance in a moving ambulance heading toward St. Luke's? Can she pass the physical demands the employer expects? If the injury affects strength, sensation, or reaction time, this can threaten certification, overtime, and long-term employability.

That is why insurers push so hard on the "nothing is wrong" narrative. If they can turn clear MRI findings into "pre-existing degeneration," they shrink the value of the case and make the injured person look unreliable.

And a postpartum patient is especially vulnerable to that garbage. She's exhausted. She's caring for a newborn. She may be sleep-deprived, emotional, and not documenting every symptom perfectly. The insurer counts on those gaps.

What actually makes these cases stronger

Not drama. Not anger. Records.

The strongest evidence is usually boring and specific: anesthesia notes, labor records, immediate complaint history, MRI comparison films, EMG studies, treating-doctor opinions, and work-duty restrictions that explain exactly why an EMT can't safely do the job.

It also helps to separate the old condition from the new harm. If a prior MRI showed mild wear-and-tear and the post-delivery imaging shows a different level, a new compression pattern, or worsening tied to sudden symptoms after the injection, that distinction matters. If the prior issue was manageable and this one stops her from working, that difference matters too.

In Massachusetts, the deadline for filing a personal injury claim is generally three years. That sounds like plenty of time until you're juggling postpartum care, specialist visits in Boston or Providence, and an insurer dragging out the process.

The ugly part is this: a clean MRI does not always mean no nerve injury, and a rude IME report definitely doesn't. But when there is a clear MRI and the insurer's doctor still says nothing is wrong, that's not a medical truth. That's a defense position dressed up in a white coat.