Defense in Car Accident Loses No-Fault Threshold Dismissal Motion Where its Orthopedist Finds Limitations

Case: Raguso v. Ubriaco

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

Date: 7/5/12

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn and Queens; Queens injury lawyer)

**************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

DEFENSE NO-FAULT "SERIOUS INJURY" THRESHOLD SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DENIED; DEFENSE DOCTORS OVERLOOKED SOME OF ACCIDENT VICTIM'S INJURIES

DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NO-FAULT "SERIOUS INJURY" THRESHOLD DENIED BECAUSE IT MISSES AN INJURY

**************************************************

Facts: This motor vehicle accident case presents a familiar issue. The defense made a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiff did not in this accident suffer the required "serious injury" under New York's No-Fault law.

However, defendant's own examining orthopedist noted that the plaintiff had diminished ranges of motion (limited ability to move, bend and twist) in his lumbar (lower) spine. And while the defendant's hired orthopedist claimed plaintiff was faking (self-imposed) his limited range of motion, he really didn't explain why he thought that.

The lower court denied the defense motion. This appeal followed.

Held: The defense fell short of meeting his burden as summary judgment applicant. The lower court was correct in denying summary judgment.

Categories