DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING
MRI is the gold standard for back injury cases. CT scans, X-rays, and EMG nerve conduction studies add to the picture. The films and reports become evidence at trial and at the workers' compensation hearing.
construction worker back injuries
Back Injuries and Your Career
A back injury can have a serious impact on a construction career.
Herniated discs, spinal fractures, nerve damage and other acute back complications are common in the line of work. These injuries require can sustained medical treatment, and they often end careers.
The workers' compensation claim covers medical and a portion of lost wages, but it does not fully compensate someone who unable to earn for the rest of their planned career.
When there is a third-party lawsuit that can be pursued, there is an opportunity to recover, for future lost earnings, pain and suffering, and other areas of your life that are affected by the injury.
We handle both sides of the case from day one. The workers' compensation claim and the third-party lawsuit run together inside this firm. The same team coordinating all of your claims to maximize your physical and financial well being.
Recent Results
$26,500,000
For an operating engineer seriously injured in a car wreck
$24,750,000
For a union laborer who suffered a double leg amputation
$9,500,000
for an elevator apprentice struck by the cab
Free Consultation
No Obligations
Key Facts About Construction Back Injuries
Workers' Comp Only Pays a Portion
30 Days to Report Injury
Claim is Against Third-Party --- Not Your Employer
Three Years to File the Lawsuit
How Back Injuries Happen on New York Construction Sites
The situations that cause back injuries on construction sites are well documented in New York case law.
Here are some useful examples for anyone familiar with construction to picture just how a back injury can unfold on a job site.
Falls from a ladder are among the most common back injury cases in New York. A journeyman plumber installing a pipe hanger system needed an eight-foot ladder to reach the work but used a six-foot ladder that was too short for the task, and he injured his back when the ladder shifted. The case turns on what Labor Law § 240 demands: owners and contractors must supply the proper, adequate safety device for the height of the work, and a ladder too short for the job is not adequate protection. (Robinson)
Falling objects. A demolition worker on a Manhattan job site raised concerns that morning about leaving pipes standing while the surrounding walls came down. No safety measures were put in place. Debris struck the pipes, which toppled about four feet and landed on his shoulder, arm, and spine. The pipes started at the same level where he was working, but the harm flowed directly from the force of gravity acting on them, so § 240 protection applied. (Wilinski)
Same-level falling loads. A worker tilting a wooden skid onto a dolly was hurt when his coworker lost his grip and the skid came down on him; the worker and the object being on the same level did not bar a § 240 claim. (Natoli) The same principle reached a skid box of concrete debris that slid off a forklift and struck a worker on a platform from one to two feet above. The weight and force of the load made even that short drop enough to fall within § 240. (DiPalma)
Heavy lifting with improper equipment. A worker helping move an 800-pound reel of electrical wire down a short set of stairs was injured when the crew tied a rope around a metal bar as a makeshift brake and the reel's weight pulled him into the bar. A pulley or hoist should have been used, and the jerry-rigged setup was a violation of § 240(1). (Runner)
Slipping hazards. A painter on a renovation slipped on plastic sheeting that had been laid over a stopped escalator and was hurt badly enough that he could not return to work. The plastic was a foreign substance under Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d), and the failure to remove it violated Labor Law § 241(6). The decision widened what counts as a slipping hazard on a construction site. (Bazdaric)
Falls through holes and unsecured decking. A plumbing foreman stepped onto a manhole that had been covered and fell when the covering gave way because it was not substantial enough to hold him. Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) requires a substantial cover or a compliant safety railing over a hazardous opening, and a broken or inadequate cover supports a Labor Law § 241(6) claim.
Trench cave-ins. A worker kneeling in a roughly six-foot trench was injured when the earthen wall collapsed on him and the makeshift shoring failed. The wall required securing for the work, and the harm flowed directly from gravity acting on the soil, which made the collapse a § 240 case. (Rivas)
Common Construction Back Injuries
Back, spine and neck injuries take many forms and can affect people in different ways. From full paralysis to constant radiating pain, the outcomes can be vary.
Herniated Discs: Disc material compresses nerve roots in the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine. Treatment ranges from PT to spinal fusion.
Fractures and breaks: compression, transverse process, and burst fractures from falls and blunt force. Some heal with bracing, others require surgery.
Spinal Stenosis: pre-existing narrowing aggravated by trauma.
Radiculopathy: Nerve compression radiating pain, numbness, or weakness into the arm or leg. EMG studies document it objectively.
The Two-Track Recovery for Construction Back Injuries
Workers' comp only covers a small amount. Two-thirds of your average weekly wage, capped at the statutory maximum (currently $1,222.42 per week for accidents in the 2025-2026 benefit year).
All necessary medical treatment. An eventual Schedule Loss of Use or Classification award if there is permanency. That is the floor of what the comp system pays.
The claim against the General Contractor or Property Owner.
This is how to recover what you would have earned over your working life had you not been hurt. Future medical care, the surgeries, injections, physical therapy, and pain management you will need for life. Pain and suffering, what New York juries award for the physical and emotional consequences of a serious injury. Each of these elements can be substantial on its own for a career-ending back injury.
The total value is also driven by the available insurance coverage. Major construction projects in New York carry primary general liability layers, project-specific OCIP and CCIP wrap-up policies, plus excess and umbrella coverage often layered $25 million deep or more. Identifying every layer and every responsible party is part of the work the firm does on every case.
Filing both Workers' compensation and the third-party lawsuit is how to best protect yourself. Workers' comp provides immediate medical coverage and wage replacement during the period of disability. The third-party lawsuit recovers the damages that workers' compensation does not pay.
Under Workers' Compensation Law § 29, the comp carrier acquires a lien on the third-party recovery. Treating them as alternatives rather than parallel claims is the single most common error in construction injury cases.
Medical Evidence That Matters
What the doctors document, how consistently you treat, and the long term impairment you face create the foundation of your case.
TREATMENT RECORDS
Every visit to the orthopedist, neurologist, pain management physician, and physical therapist becomes part of the record. Prescriptions, injections, recommended surgeries are all logged.
IMPAIRMENT RATING
Once you reach maximum medical improvement, the treating physician's permanency rating and the IME physician's rating become central to the Schedule Loss of Use award and the third-party damages calculation.
Pre-Existing Conditions and the Aggravation Doctrine
New York law follows the "eggshell plaintiff" rule.
This means even if you have a pre-existing condition, the defendants are still responsible . A worker with a pre-existing condition who was asymptomatic before the accident and symptomatic after is compensable for the difference.
Aggravation of a pre-existing condition is its own theory of recovery under New York law.
The case for aggravation is built on the comparison between the worker's condition before the accident and after. Medical records, work attendance records, and employer evaluations establishing function before the accident are compared to the surgical reports, and impairment ratings documenting the changes after the injury.
An MRI finding of pre-existing degenerative back issues does not defeat the claim.
How Schwartzapfel Holbrook Handles These Cases
When someone calls Schwartzapfel Holbrook about a back injury at work, the firm starts with the work classification question and the chain of responsible parties.
Are there layers of insurance beyond the GC's primary policy?
The third-party case and the workers' compensation case run together inside this firm, not in separate offices. The same team handles both. The comp lien gets negotiated as part of the settlement, not as an afterthought. Every dollar gets accounted for.
Every case the firm accepts is prepared as if it will go to trial. That level of investigation, record collection, legal analysis, and trial strategy has yielded consistent record results for over 45 years.
Frequently Asked Questions About Construction Back Injuries
A construction worker back injury is any injury to the spine, vertebrae, intervertebral discs, spinal nerves, or surrounding muscles and ligaments that occurs during construction work. The injuries include herniated discs, fractures, spinal stenosis, radiculopathy, and soft tissue injuries.
Construction sites produce a higher rate of back injuries than almost any other industry because of the combination of heavy lifting, falls from heights, falling objects, and confined-space work. New York case law on back injuries in construction is among the most developed in the country because of the strong protections of Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6), and 200.
The most common causes are falls from ladders and scaffolds, lifting heavy materials, being struck by falling objects, trench cave-ins, and motor vehicle impacts on roadwork crews. New York appellate courts have published opinions on every one of these mechanisms.
Falls from height are the leading single cause. Lifting injuries are the second most common, though many lifting injuries involve more than just the weight of the object. They involve inadequate equipment that forced the worker into a dangerous position. Struck-by injuries from falling objects, including same-level falling loads, are a growing category under the Wilinski line of cases.
You can file a lawsuit if a party other than your direct employer is responsible for the injury. Property owners, general contractors, subcontractors, equipment manufacturers, and equipment rental companies can all be sued. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against the direct employer, but it does not block the third-party lawsuit against everyone else.
On a typical New York construction site, the property owner and the general contractor are both potential defendants under Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6), and 200. Subcontractors who controlled the work or created the hazard can also be liable. The lawsuit and the workers' compensation claim run together, not as alternatives.
You can sue and file workers' compensation at the same time. They are separate claims with separate elements. The workers' compensation claim is against the carrier through your employer. The third-party lawsuit is against the responsible parties up the chain.
The workers' compensation carrier acquires a lien on the third-party recovery under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 for the medical and indemnity benefits it has paid. The lien is negotiable. The math on the recovery accounts for it at settlement.
Back injury cases vary widely in value. The factors that drive the recovery are the severity and permanency of the injury, the strength of the liability theory, the worker's pre-accident earning capacity, the available insurance coverage, and the documentation of the medical record.
A back injury that requires surgery and produces permanent restrictions on work activity is more valuable than one that resolves with conservative treatment. A Labor Law § 240 strict liability case is more valuable than a § 200 negligence case on the same facts. A worker with high pre-accident earnings has a larger lost earning capacity claim than a worker with lower earnings. Each factor compounds. No two cases are valued identically.
The honest answer is that a meaningful estimate of any individual case requires a review of the medical record, the accident facts, and the available coverage. The firm provides that review at the initial consultation.
Workers' comp pays two-thirds of your average weekly wage, capped at the statutory maximum for the year of the injury. For accidents in the 2025-2026 benefit year, the maximum weekly rate is $1,222.42. Medical treatment for the injury is fully covered. A Schedule Loss of Use or Classification award is available at the end of treatment if there is permanency.
The comp benefits are paid as long as the worker remains disabled or until the case is closed by a Section 32 settlement. The medical coverage continues for life if needed. The total comp benefits over the life of a serious back injury case can be substantial on their own.
There is no meaningful average. The range of settlements is too wide and the factors that determine value are too case-specific for an average figure to be useful.
Construction back injury settlements in New York range from modest recoveries for soft tissue injuries that resolve to substantial recoveries for surgical cases with permanent disability. The variables that drive the difference include the severity of the injury, the liability theory, the worker's economic loss, and the insurance available to pay the claim. A case-by-case analysis is the only way to assess what a particular case is worth.
A herniated disc is a tear in the outer wall of an intervertebral disc that allows the soft inner material to push outward and compress the surrounding nerves. The compressed nerve produces pain, numbness, weakness, and reduced range of motion in the back and often radiating into the leg or arm depending on the level of the herniation.
Treatment progresses from conservative to surgical. Physical therapy and anti-inflammatory medication are usually tried first. Epidural steroid injections are the next step for persistent pain. Surgical options include microdiscectomy, laminectomy, and spinal fusion. Many construction worker back injury cases involve workers who tried conservative treatment for months or years before surgery became necessary.
A bulging disc has lost some of its normal shape but the outer wall is intact. A herniated disc has a tear in the outer wall through which the inner material has escaped.
The distinction matters in insurance company defenses. Defendants argue that bulging discs are not traumatic and are present in most adults without symptoms. The response is that the symptoms, what the worker actually feels and what limits their work, are what matter, not the label assigned to the imaging finding. A symptomatic bulging disc that produces nerve compression and radiculopathy is compensable regardless of the terminology.
Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the spinal canal or the openings where nerves exit the spine. It produces pain, numbness, and weakness, often worse with standing or walking and relieved by sitting.
Stenosis is often classified as degenerative, meaning it develops gradually with age. But traumatic injury can cause new stenosis or aggravate pre-existing stenosis to the point that it becomes symptomatic. A construction worker who had asymptomatic stenosis before the accident and disabling stenosis after the accident has a compensable injury under New York's aggravation doctrine.
Sciatica is pain that radiates from the lower back down through the buttock and into the leg, following the path of the sciatic nerve. It is a symptom, not a diagnosis. The underlying cause is usually compression of a nerve root in the lumbar spine.
Sciatica from a construction injury is fully compensable in both the workers' compensation claim and the third-party lawsuit. The pain itself is part of the damages. The underlying nerve compression, often a herniated disc, drives the medical treatment and the case value.
Radiculopathy is the medical term for symptoms caused by compression of a spinal nerve root. The symptoms include pain, numbness, tingling, and weakness that follow the distribution of the affected nerve, typically radiating into the arm (cervical radiculopathy) or leg (lumbar radiculopathy).
Radiculopathy is significant in construction back injury cases because it provides objective evidence that the injury is real. EMG and nerve conduction studies can document the nerve dysfunction directly. The defense argument that the injury is "just soft tissue" or "just muscle strain" falls apart when there is documented radiculopathy.
A simple back injury case with no surgery can settle in 12 to 18 months once medical treatment stabilizes. A back injury case involving spinal fusion surgery and permanent disability typically takes 2 to 4 years from injury to settlement. Cases that go to trial take longer.
The timeline depends on how quickly the worker reaches maximum medical improvement, how long discovery takes, and whether the defendants accept liability or fight every issue. New York Labor Law § 240 cases with strong liability often settle faster because the defendants face strict liability and the case posture favors the plaintiff. § 200 cases with disputed control or notice issues take longer.
Three years from the date of the accident for a personal injury lawsuit against most defendants under CPLR § 214. Two years from the date of death for a wrongful death claim under EPTL § 5-4.1. The statute of limitations is shorter for claims against municipal defendants, typically 90 days to file a Notice of Claim and one year and 90 days to file the lawsuit.
The clock starts the day the accident happened, not the day you realized how serious the injury was. Waiting to see if the back gets better before contacting a lawyer is one of the most common ways construction workers lose their cases. Pre-suit investigation takes months. Filing a lawsuit on the eve of the statute deadline is doable but risky.
30 days to give written notice of the injury to your employer under Workers' Compensation Law § 18. Failure to report within 30 days can be a defense to the comp claim, though the WCB has discretion to excuse late notice in some circumstances.
Two years to file the formal C-3 employee claim under WCL § 28. The two-year clock is firmer than the 30-day notice clock. Late filing of the C-3 is a near-fatal defect to the claim.
The 30-day notice is best satisfied by a written report, text message, email, or accident report form, that documents the date, the mechanism, and the body part injured. Verbal reports are also valid but harder to prove later.
Most adults over 40 have some degree of degenerative changes on MRI even if they have never had back pain. The defense argument that those changes were already there is the predictable response in every construction back injury case.
The legal answer is the eggshell plaintiff rule and the aggravation doctrine. New York law compensates the injured worker for the difference between their pre-accident condition and their post-accident condition. A worker who was working full duty before the accident and is disabled after the accident has a compensable case, regardless of what the MRI shows underneath.
The case is built on the difference. Pre-accident records establishing no symptoms. Post-accident records documenting new symptoms and new restrictions. The medical record is what tells the story.
Yes. New York follows the eggshell plaintiff rule and the aggravation doctrine. A worker with a prior back injury who recovered enough to return to construction work, and who suffered a new injury or aggravation in a subsequent accident, can recover for the new injury or aggravation.
The case becomes more complex because the defense will argue the symptoms are all from the prior injury. The response is to document the pre-accident baseline (medical records, work records showing full duty work) and the post-accident deterioration (new MRI findings, new treatment, new work restrictions). Prior back injuries are common in construction workers. They do not bar recovery.
The eggshell plaintiff rule is the legal doctrine that defendants take their victim as they find them. A defendant whose negligence causes harm to a person with a pre-existing vulnerability is liable for the full extent of the harm, even if a non-vulnerable person would have suffered less.
In construction back injury cases, the eggshell rule means a worker with pre-existing degenerative changes or a prior back injury can fully recover for the aggravation. The defendant cannot argue that the worker was already damaged and therefore deserves less compensation. The worker is entitled to be made whole.
Aggravation is the legal theory that allows recovery when a new injury makes a pre-existing condition worse. The plaintiff must prove that they were either asymptomatic before the accident or had a stable level of symptoms that worsened materially because of the accident.
Aggravation is its own theory of recovery, separate from the eggshell plaintiff rule. The eggshell rule applies to the extent of damages. Aggravation is the legal label for the type of injury being claimed. Both work together in construction back injury cases involving pre-existing conditions.
The four categories that matter are diagnostic imaging, treatment records, impairment ratings, and functional capacity evaluations. MRI is the gold standard for diagnostic imaging. Treatment records from orthopedists, neurologists, pain management physicians, and physical therapists document the course of care. Impairment ratings from the treating physician and the IME physician drive the workers' comp award and the third-party damages calculation. Functional capacity evaluations document the worker's ability to return to work or the permanent restrictions.
Consistency across the categories is what makes the medical case strong. Gaps in treatment, inconsistent reporting of symptoms to different providers, or missed appointments are used by defendants to undermine the claim. Disciplined documentation is the foundation of the recovery.
The back is not on the New York Workers' Compensation Schedule. Schedule Loss of Use awards under Workers' Compensation Law § 15(3) cover specific body parts (arms, legs, hands, feet, eyes, fingers, toes) and the back is not among them.
For back injuries, permanent disability is compensated through a Classification award under WCL § 15(5), which provides weekly indemnity benefits based on the percentage of permanent disability. The math is different from an SLU award and the benefits are paid weekly rather than as a lump sum. The total economic value of a back injury Classification can be substantial.
Yes. Back injuries that produce permanent impairment qualify for a Permanent Total Disability or Permanent Partial Disability classification under Workers' Compensation Law § 15. The classification is based on the medical findings at maximum medical improvement, the worker's vocational capacity, and the application of the New York 2012 Permanency Impairment Guidelines.
The Classification produces weekly indemnity benefits paid for the duration of the disability, capped by the statutory maximum. A worker classified at 75% permanent partial disability receives benefits based on that percentage. The total lifetime value of a Classification award can be substantial for a younger worker with a serious injury.
Maximum medical improvement (MMI) is the point at which the worker's condition has stabilized and further significant improvement is not expected with ongoing treatment. MMI does not mean the worker is back to normal. It means the injury has reached the level of recovery it will reach.
MMI matters because it is the threshold for permanency determination in both the workers' compensation claim and the third-party damages analysis. The impairment rating and the SLU or Classification award follow from MMI. Cases generally do not settle for full value until MMI is reached because the long-term consequences of the injury are not yet known.
An independent medical examination (IME) is an evaluation by a physician chosen by the workers' compensation carrier or by the defense in a third-party case. The "independent" label is misleading. The IME physician is selected and paid by the insurance carrier or the defense.
The IME physician's opinion competes with the treating physician's opinion on questions of causation, extent of injury, work capacity, and permanency rating. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge or the jury weighs the competing opinions. Preparation for the IME is part of the work the firm does on every case.
The dispute is resolved by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge in the comp case and by the jury in the third-party case. The treating physician's opinion, supported by the medical record, is the primary evidence of injury and disability. The IME opinion is the defense response.
A WCLJ or a jury that sees consistent medical treatment, objective imaging findings, and a credible treating physician will typically credit the treating opinion over the IME opinion. A worker whose medical record has gaps, inconsistencies, or unsupported claims gives the IME more weight. This is one of many reasons that consistent documented treatment is critical.
The workers' compensation carrier can offer light-duty work that fits within the medical restrictions imposed by the treating physician. If the offered work fits the restrictions and the worker refuses, the carrier can suspend wage replacement benefits.
The medical question is what restrictions actually apply. A treating physician who imposes appropriate restrictions protects the worker from being forced into work that will worsen the injury. A worker who is pressured to return without proper medical clearance can suffer additional permanent injury. The firm works with the medical record to ensure the documentation reflects the actual functional limits.
A worker who cannot return to construction work after a back injury has a vocational disability that is compensable in both the workers' compensation Classification award and the third-party damages claim. The Classification accounts for the inability to perform construction work. The third-party claim includes lost earning capacity over the worker's remaining working life.
Lost earning capacity is often the largest component of a back injury third-party recovery. A 35-year-old construction worker who can no longer do construction work has 30 or more years of lost earning capacity to recover. The calculation involves vocational experts, economists, and detailed analysis of the pre-accident and post-accident earning trajectories.
Yes. All necessary medical treatment for a compensable work injury is covered by workers' compensation in New York, including back surgery. The surgery must be recommended by the treating physician and authorized by the carrier or the WCB.
The Medical Treatment Guidelines for the spine provide the framework for what surgeries are presumptively covered and what requires variance approval. Spinal fusion, microdiscectomy, laminectomy, and disc replacement are all covered procedures when medically indicated. The carrier sometimes contests the necessity. The firm handles those disputes as part of the comp case.
The workers' compensation carrier pays for medical treatment for a compensable injury, including back surgery. The carrier is required to authorize necessary treatment within the Medical Treatment Guidelines.
If the carrier denies or delays authorization, the firm handles the dispute before the Workers' Compensation Board. If the worker has paid out of pocket, the comp carrier is required to reimburse those expenses for covered treatment. Health insurance is generally not the right channel for work injury treatment because the work injury creates the comp obligation.
Spinal fusion is a surgical procedure that joins two or more vertebrae together using bone graft, metal hardware, or both. The procedure is performed when the spinal segment is unstable, when conservative treatment has failed to relieve pain, or when other surgical procedures like discectomy are not sufficient.
A spinal fusion is one of the most consequential events in a back injury case. The procedure produces permanent restrictions on bending, lifting, and twisting. It typically ends a worker's construction career. It increases the value of the third-party case because the future medical needs, the lost earning capacity, and the pain and suffering damages all increase.
Yes. The general contractor is liable under Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6), and 200 for construction site injuries. Under § 240 and § 241(6), the GC's liability is strict or near-strict. The GC cannot escape responsibility by pointing to the subcontractor who actually caused the accident.
The GC's involvement does not require active negligence. The non-delegable duties under Labor Law are imposed on the GC by statute. The case against the GC runs alongside the case against the property owner and any other responsible party.
Yes. The property owner is liable under Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6), and 200 for construction injuries on the property. The homeowner exception applies only to owners of one- and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work. Commercial property owners, multi-family residential owners, and business entity owners do not have the exception.
The property owner's liability is independent of the GC's liability. Both can be sued in the same lawsuit. The case is typically structured to pursue every available party and every available insurance layer.
Labor Law § 240, known as the Scaffold Law, imposes absolute liability on property owners and general contractors for gravity-related construction injuries. The statute applies to back injuries when the injury arose from a fall from height, a falling object, or another gravity-related risk that adequate safety equipment would have prevented.
The Robinson and Runner cases both involve back-adjacent injuries that arose under § 240. The Wilinski line of cases extends § 240 to same-level falling object injuries that affect the back. The statute is the strongest legal tool available for construction back injury cases when the facts fit.
Labor Law § 241(6) imposes liability on property owners and general contractors for construction injuries caused by violations of specific provisions of the New York Industrial Code. The statute applies to back injuries when an Industrial Code violation contributed to the accident.
Common Industrial Code provisions in back injury cases include 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (protection from general hazards), 23-1.21 (ladders), 23-5 (scaffolding), and provisions on safe access, manual material handling, and equipment guarding. The right Industrial Code citation is determined by the specific facts of how the accident happened.
Pain and suffering is recovered in the third-party lawsuit, not in the workers' compensation claim. Workers' comp covers medical treatment, indemnity benefits, and the eventual Schedule Loss of Use or Classification award. It does not pay for pain and suffering.
The third-party lawsuit recovers the full range of damages, including past and future pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of consortium for the spouse. The pain and suffering component of a serious back injury case is determined by the jury based on the evidence of the worker's physical pain, the impact on daily activities, and the duration of the disability. The amount varies significantly with the facts of each case.
You can file a workers' compensation claim without a lawyer, and many simple claims are handled without representation. But back injury cases are rarely simple. The dispute over the extent of the injury, the carrier's IME, the variance requests for treatment, the Classification process, and the SLU or Classification award all involve technical legal and medical questions where representation matters.
More importantly, the workers' compensation lawyer is often the first to identify the third-party case that the worker did not know existed. The third-party case is where the full recovery lives. Hiring a firm that handles both sides of the case from day one is the difference between a comp-only recovery and the full picture.