Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Pedro MELO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Jose GRULLON, Defendant–Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered August 3, 2011, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the threshold issue of serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the claims of serious injury resulting in “permanent consequential” or “significant” limitations and fracture, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Defendant established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury resulting in either a “permanent consequential” or a “significant” limitation of use of his lumbar spine by submitting an affirmation by a neurologist who examined plaintiff and found a full range of motion of the lumbar spine, and diagnosed him with a resolved lumbar sprain/strain (see Baez v. Boyd, 90 AD3d 524 [1st Dept 2011] ).
In opposition, plaintiff raised an issue of fact by submitting an MRI report by his radiologist, who found a disc herniation at L4–5; a report by a physician who opined that a subsequent MRI of the lumbar spine revealed an acute compression fracture of the endplate at L–3 and disc herniations at L4–5 and other levels; his chiropractor's affidavit showing range of motion limitations contemporaneous with the accident; and affirmations by three physicians who found continuing limitations and opined that these limitations were permanent and that the lumbar injuries were directly caused by the accident (see Thompkins v. Ortiz, 95 AD3d 418 [1st Dept 2012] ). This record does not support plaintiff's contention that he suffered a permanent loss of use of his lumbar spine (see Oberly v. Bangs Ambulance, 96 N.Y.2d 295, 299 [2001] ).
Defendant established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a 90/180–day injury by submitting plaintiff's bill of particulars and deposition testimony acknowledging that he was confined to bed and home for only a week; in opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see Hospedales v. “John Doe,” 79 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2010] ).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 06, 2012
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)