You are here: / / Plaintiff’s Expert’s Failure to Address Indications in Plaintiff’s...
,

Plaintiff’s Expert’s Failure to Address Indications in Plaintiff’s Evidence that the Physical Deficits Were the Result of a Preexisitng Degenerative Condition (Not the Accident) Required the Grant of Summary Judgment to the Defendants—Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Re: Suffering a “Serious Injury” [Insurance Law 5102 (d)] as a Result of the Accident

The First Department determined, over a two-justice dissent, that summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants because plaintiff was unable to raise a question of fact whether plaintiff’s injury was a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d).  Plaintiff’s evidence indicated plaintiff’s physical deficits may be the result of a preexisting degenerative condition, rather than the accident.  However, plaintiff’s expert did not address the preexisting condition in response to the motion for summary judgment:

Plaintiff submitted his … orthopedic surgeon’s opinion that he suffered a knee injury “secondary” to the car accident. However, the surgeon’s opinion failed to raise an issue of fact since the surgeon not only failed to address or contest the opinion of defendants’ medical experts that any condition was chronic and unrelated to the accident, but also failed to address or contest the finding of degenerative changes in the MRI report in plaintiff’s own medical records, which the same surgeon had acknowledged in his … note.

Our dissenting colleague overlooks that recent precedents of this Court establish that a plaintiff cannot raise an issue of fact concerning the existence of a serious injury under the No-Fault Law where, as here, the plaintiff’s own experts fail to address indications from the plaintiff’s own medical records, or in the plaintiff’s own expert evidence, that the physical deficits in question result from a preexisting degenerative condition rather than the subject accident (see Alvarez v NYLL Mgt. Ltd., 120 AD3d 1043, 1044 [1st Dept 2014] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, his expert failed to address “detailed findings of preexisting degenerative conditions by defendants’ experts, which were acknowledged in the reports of plaintiff’s own radiologists”]; Farmer v Ventkate, Inc., 117 AD3d 562, 562 [1st Dept 2014] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, “(h)is orthopedic surgeon concurred [*2]that the X rays showed advanced degenerative changes”]; Mena v White City Car & Limo Inc., 117 AD3d 441, 441 [1st Dept 2014] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, “plaintiff’s own radiologists noted degenerative conditions in their MRI reports, but failed to explain why this was not the cause of plaintiff’s injuries”]; Paduani v Rodriguez, 101 AD3d 470, 470, 471 [1st Dept 2012] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, defendants submitted “a radiograph report of plaintiff’s radiologist finding severe degenerative changes” and, “(w)hile (plaintiff’s) expert acknowledged in his own report MRI findings of degenerative changes in the lumbar spine, he did not address or contest such findings, and the MRI report of (plaintiff’s) radiologist found herniations but did not address causation”]; Rosa v Mejia, 95 AD3d 402, 404 [1st Dept 2012] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, “plaintiff’s own radiologist . . . confirmed degenerative narrowing at the L5-S1 intervertebral disc space’ without further comment”]). Rivera v Fernandez & Ulloa Auto Group, 2014 NY Slip Op 08735, 1st Dept 12-11-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S FIRING FOR WORKPLACE DISRUPTION AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN A NOTORIOUS ASSAULT CASE [HIS CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED] DID NOT VIOLATE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; COUNSEL SAID A GUILTY PLEA MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION WHEN DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRWAY HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
MEDICAL (SURGICAL) RECORDS IN A NO-FAULT FILE RELATED TO A PRIOR INJURY SUFFERED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS DAMAGES TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Libel Action Based Upon Allegedly False Impressions Created by an Article in an Online News Publication, Including the Allegedly False Context of a Quotation of Plaintiff’s Own Words, Allowed to Go Forward; Pleading Requirements for Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Met.
ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT).
STANDING ON THE TOP STEP OF AN A FRAME LADDER WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S FALL; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Wear a Safety Harness Could Not Constitute the Sole Proximate Cause... Landlord Properly Granted Summary Judgment in Action Stemming from an Assault...