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.
Alexis OGANDO, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Defendants made a prima facie showing that neither plaintiff met the statutory serious injury threshold under the No–Fault Law (see generally Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 345, 746 N.Y.S.2d 865, 774 N.E.2d 1197 [2002] ).
Plaintiff Ogando's medical records included an MRI report showing multilevel degenerative disc disease (see Andrade v. Lugo, 160 A.D.3d 535, 536, 75 N.Y.S.3d 162 [1st Dept. 2018] ), and his expert failed to sufficiently raise an issue of fact by challenging the findings of degenerative disease or otherwise attempting to connect plaintiff's injuries to this accident (Campbell v. Drammeh, 161 A.D.3d 584, 585, 77 N.Y.S.3d 381 [1st Dept. 2018] ). Ogando's expert also failed to address a prior motor vehicle accident which resulted in claimed lower back and neck injuries or to negate any inference that that accident was the cause of plaintiff's current conditions (see Moses v. Gelco Corp., 63 A.D.3d 548, 548–549, 880 N.Y.S.2d 291 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Finally, Ogando provided inconsistent explanations for his complete cessation of treatment after three months (see Alston v. Elliott, 159 A.D.3d 575, 576, 73 N.Y.S.3d 50 [1st Dept. 2018] ).
Plaintiff Aybar's claim was also properly dismissed, as she testified that she stopped treatment because her doctors told her it was no longer necessary, and her medical records indicated that she had normal range of motion when treatment ceased. Her later assertion that she stopped medical treatment after no fault benefits expired was in direct conflict with her earlier testimony and thus failed to raise an issue of fact (see Vila v. Foxglove Taxi Corp., 159 A.D.3d 431, 431, 71 N.Y.S.3d 69 [1st Dept. 2018] ). Moreover, her expert physician only documented a five degree limitation in one plane of motion, which is insufficient for a finding of serious injury under the statute (see Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176 [1992] ).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 7752
Decided: November 29, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
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)