Auto Insurance Claims: Medical Bills From Auto Accident - Regular Amt. vs. Insurance Paid Amt., quack doctor, frequent bouts

Question
I am currently negotiating to settle for an accident that I was in last April where a driver ran a red light and totaled my car with my daughter and myself in it.  Fortunately my daughter only received only bruises and was in a bit of a daze for the next day and a half.  I received injuries in the form of herniated discs (between c5 and c6 and c6 and c7).  First, the adjuster is claiming that the doctor is claiming pre-existing conditions but they couldn't pinpoint a date, they just gave "general" references to past incidents one of which was a TREE STUMP SCRAPE and the other one I was rear ended but not hard. I had no medical problems whatsoever. I just requested my medical records so I'll be able to determined whether or not that was an outright lie w/regards to comments from my doctors (which I have a feeling it may be).  My MAIN question is, when determining a settlement based on what most people consider "standard claims settlement guidelines" (although I realize that's not really set it stone) when I'm countering they're sad, sad offer (2,100) do I bring up the fact that the medical portion that they're paying is FAR lower than what it would normally be because I CHOSE to go through my own health insurance vs. seeing some quack doctor through an attorney and they only have to reimburse the health insurance negotiated rates vs. the rates that an individual would be charged or something along those lines?  I'm at a point where surgery is NOT an option. . I still have slight numbness in my right hand (fingertips) and pain in my right wrist (which they refuse to even recognize) and the only way I'd have surgery on those discs would be if i were in severe pain. I have frequent bouts of "tightness" and tenderness in that are where I never had them before and some neck tension but not enough to warrant surgery of that nature. I didn't even go in for pain management shots because I'm not a fan of needles, especially in the spinal area.  How do I prove that rather than subject myself to invasive therapy (injections) that I'd prefer to try to work through it on my own but because of that it does NOT mean I'm not as injured as they may seem to think because of that also? I'm very frustrated at this point but it won't cause me to just "settle for whatever".  If anything I'm ready to do whatever I have to do to fight harder.

Any help is appreciated.  Thank you.

Answer
Hi Christine,
Medical bills, lost wages, the cost of commuting to each appointment to receive medical services are your form of PROOF that you suffered injuries and the total of these bills are a major factor in determining the value of your claim.
No medical bills = no money.
If it is your choice to avoid physical therapy prescribed by a doctor and avoid any medical assistance in controlling your pain, then your statement to the insurance company that "I'm hurt, but I'm going to tough it it out" means that you have no proof that you are injured and you can expect a very minimal settlement.
I hope you find this information useful.
Sincerely,
Bennie
San Francisco Bay Area.