Spinal Cord Injury Claim With Conflicting Testimonies by Medical Experts*

This action was commenced to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff was riding his bicycle when a taxicab owned and operated by the defendants hit the rear tire of plaintiff's bicycle.

A motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's spinal cord injury claim was filed by the defendants on the grounds that the plaintiff did not suffer a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law.

The defendants argue that the plaintiff has not met the serious injury threshold as set forth in Insurance Law. The defendants have submitted a report from a radiologist and a neurologist.

The plaintiff in this spinal cord injury claim states he suffered numerous injuries as a result of the accident, including: disc herniation at C6/7 with flattening of the left ventral margin of the cord avid left foraminal stenosis; cervical radiculopathy; right shoulder contusion; and right elbow contusion. The plaintiff asserted each injury was permanent.

A neurologist designated by the defendants examined plaintiff and found that he exhibited no signs of any neurological deficits and no neurologic permanency. The doctor concluded that any head trauma and/or spinal cord injury had resolved, and that the plaintiff was capable of performing normal activities of daily living, including employment, without restrictions.

The plaintiff submitted an affirmation of another doctor that opines he sustained cervical herniation at C6-C7, and that based upon the examination the plaintiff has severely restricted cervical range of motion of a permanent nature.

New York's No-Fault Insurance Law precludes recovery for any "noneconomic loss, except in the case of serious injury, or for basic economic loss" arising out of the negligent use or operation of a motor vehicle. As recognized by the Court of Appeals, the "legislative intent underlying the No-Fault Law was to weed out frivolous claims and limit recovery to significant injuries."

Insurance Law defines "serious injury" as "a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment."

A minor, mild or slight limitation of use is considered insignificant within the meaning of the statute. Further, subjective claims of pain and limitation of movement must be verified by objective medical findings that are based on a recent examination of the plaintiff.

In this case the court finds that the defendants' submission was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" as a result of the accident. The burden shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact. 

The plaintiff presented competent evidence substantiating his claim that his injuries caused a significant limitation in the use of his cervical spine. The court found that such submission was sufficient to rebut the defendants' prima facie showing of no serious injury.

The motion by the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to sustain a "serious injury" as that term is defined by Insurance Law was therefore DENIED.