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.
Ruben ESPINAL, et al., Respondents, v. James GALICIA, et al., Appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated May 30, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
“Although a bulging or herniated disc may constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), a plaintiff must provide objective evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration” (Monette v. Keller, 281 A.D.2d 523, 523-24, 721 N.Y.S.2d 839; see, Duldulao v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 296, 297, 725 N.Y.S.2d 380). The defendants' medical expert examined the plaintiff Rosa Montero and stated in his affirmed report, inter alia, that “[c]ervical range of motion was complete and pain-free” and straight-leg raising was negative to 90°, despite magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) reports showing disc bulging at C6-C7 and a right paracentral herniated disc at L5-S1. This proof was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Montero did not sustain a serious injury in the incident (see, Duldulao v. City of New York, supra).
The defendants' medical expert also examined the plaintiff Ruben Espinal and stated in a corresponding affirmed report, inter alia, that “[c]ervical range of motion was complete and pain free”, despite a MRI report showing a bulging disc at C5-C6. This proof was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Espinal did not sustain a serious injury in the incident.
The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs' treating physician failed to specify the objective tests she performed in arriving at her conclusions concerning alleged restrictions in range of motion for each plaintiff (see, Grossman v. Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79, 707 N.Y.S.2d 233).
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: January 28, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)