Back Injury Lawyer Seeking Damages for a Plaintiff´s Physical and Psychological Injuries Resulting from a Car Crash*

The plaintiff is Theresa Brand-Mills et al. The defendant is Ron McAndrews. This is an appeal from the lower court that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff Theresa Brand-Mills launched this action on the advice of her back injury lawyer to recover damages for personal injuries that she and her two children sustained after their motor vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant McAndrews.

The plaintiff sustained injuries to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, her right-side extremities, and she also suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder.

The plaintiff's back injury lawyer alleges that each injury satisfied the serious injury categories of a "permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system" and a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system."

The court said it has been established "that a causally-related emotional injury, alone or in combination with a physical injury, can constitute a serious injury."

The defendant submitted an affidavit of an orthopedic consultant, as well as the plaintiff's psychological treatment records. The consultant declined to comment on the plaintiff's psychological injury. The plaintiff's psychological records indicate that two years after the accident, she exhibited "symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, including recurrent thoughts and memories of the accident, driving anxiety, hyper-vigilance, and nightmares."

The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff's alleged causally-related psychological injury did not amount to a serious injury. He was not entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

Turning to the plaintiff´s remaining allegations of serious injuries concerning certain physical ailments, it is necessary to consider whether the defendant met her initial burden of proof. With respect to the plaintiff's back injury lawyer's claims under the significant limitation of use category, the doctor confirmed that she exhibited a "slight limitation of motion" of her cervical spine that was consistent with "a mild cervical strain."

This evidence was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff's alleged limitations were no more than "minor, mild or slight." This evidence further proved that the plaintiff did not suffer a "total loss of use" of any body organ, member, function or system as is required to establish a serious injury under the permanent loss of use category.

The burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce "competent medical evidence, based on objective findings and diagnostic tests, proving the existence of triable issues of fact."

Although the plaintiff's doctor thought she had suffered a "typical whiplash injury" constituting a significant limitation of use of a body function or system, he did not quantify the extent of the plaintiff's limitations by "designation of a numeric percentage of her loss of range of motion" or provide an objectively based "qualitative assessment of her condition."

The current court found that the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendant's prima facie case that the plaintiff's physical injuries did not constitute a significant limitation of use and/or a permanent loss of use. The defendant was therefore entitled to summary judgment dismissing that portion of the claim.