This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 20, 2008. The complainant man’s vehicle was impacted from the rear by the accused man’s vehicle, while both vehicles were moving in the same lane of travel. The accused man’s vehicle was operated by his son at the time of the accident. As a result of the accident, the Long Island complainant claims to have suffered serious and permanent spinal injuries, including restricted range of motion in the areas of his lumbar and cervical spine.
Based upon his bill of particulars, the complainant is asserting claims of permanent consequential and significant limitation of use of a body function or system, and a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature, which prevented him from performing substantially all of his customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident claim.
It is well recognized that summary judgment or judgment without trial is a drastic remedy and as such should only be granted in the limited circumstances where there are no triable issues of fact. Summary judgment should only be granted where the court finds as a matter of law that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The Court’s analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the complainant.
A party moving for summary judgment must make a legitimate showing of entitlement as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. The accused parties must demonstrate that the complainant did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law as a result of the accident. The accused parties have met their burden.
In support of their motion, the accused have submitted the complainant’s bill of particulars, the complainant’s deposition testimony, and the affirmed reports of the accused parties’ examining Manhattan orthopedic surgeon and radiologist.
On January 6, 2011, the accused parties’ examining radiologist reviewed the cervical and lumbar spine MRI studies taken on April 28, 2008 and May 20, 2008, respectively. Upon review, the radiologist set forth his impressions that the complainant suffers from multi-level spine injury, and that the findings on the MRI are not causally related to the reported accident of April 20, 2008. In addition, the radiologist did not find any disc herniations or bulges in the cervical spine, and only mild bulging in the lumbar spine that he attributes to the degenerative disease.
The MRI report of the cervical spine dated April 28, 2008 notes two bulging discs, which cause a slight spinal injury. The MRI report of the lumbar spine dated May 20, 2008 notes a herniated disc in the lumbar spine, also contributing to a slight spinal injury. Those MRI reports do not mention any degenerative disc disease, nor do they relate the findings to the subject accident.
Although the MRI reports and the radiologist’s review of same differ in various respects, the Court notes that, a tear in tendons, as well as a tear in a ligament or bulging disc is not evidence of a serious injury under the no-fault law in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from injury and its duration. Thus, whether or not the radiologists agree on the interpretation of the MRI studies, the complainant must still exhibit physical limitations in order to sustain a claim of serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law.
The complainant was examined by the accused parties’ examining orthopedic surgeon, on January 21, 2011. The orthopedic surgeon reviewed a number of the complainant’s medical records, including the bill of particulars, MRI and nerve study reports, physical therapy and acupuncture notes, and the reports of the complainant’s doctors and chiropractor. He measured range of motion in the complainant’s cervical and lumbar spine areas with a goniometer. He also conducted various, other tests, including reflex, which were negative. He set forth his specific findings, comparing those findings to normal range of motion, and he concluded that the complainant’s cervical and lumbosacral strains are resolved. According to the orthopedic surgeon, the complainant does not exhibit any objective evidence of a disability, is capable of full time, full duty work, and is capable of carrying on his activities of daily living.
Examining the reports of the accused parties’ physician, there are sufficient tests conducted set forth therein to provide an objective basis so that his respective qualitative assessments of the complainant could readily be challenged by any of his expert(s) during cross examination at trial, and be weighed by the trier of fact. Thus, the accused parties have met their burden with respect to the permanent consequential and significant limitation of use categories of injury. As to whether or not the accused parties have sustained their burden on the 90/180 days injury claim, the Court considers the complainant’s deposition testimony submitted with the instant motion.
An accused may establish through presentation of a complainant’s own deposition testimony that a complainant did not sustain an injury of a non-permanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts, which constitute his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence. Moreover, a complainant’s allegation of curtailment of recreation and household activities and an inability to lift heavy packages is generally insufficient to demonstrate that he or she was prevented from performing substantially all of his customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident.
The complainant’s deposition testimony establishes that he was working as a deliveryman at a deli prior to the accident, and that he missed only one week of work following the accident. He further admitted that he was not told by any medical professional that he could not work following the accident. Upon his return to work, he apparently suffered no change in his duties, and continued to work at the deli for almost three more years. He only ceased working at the deli because he moved to a different county. He further testified that he is currently unemployed and is not actively seeking employment.
As to his specific injuries, the complainant testified that he refused to go to the hospital on the date of the accident despite feeling pain in his neck, in addition to a headache. According to him, he received physical and chiropractic treatment through November or December 2008, at which time he ceased treatment. He did not offer a reason for his cessation of treatment. He admitted to taking only an over-the-counter pain reliever since the accident.
Aside from missing one week from work, the complainant testified that he can no longer play soccer because his lower back hurts, and that he can no longer go dancing because it hurts his back to do so. According to him, he used to play soccer with friends and go dancing once or twice a month before the accident. He also testified that he cannot carry his children, whose ages as of the deposition date in December 2010 were nine, six and four years old, or clean the bathtub. He was not forced to hire help for household chores, and he testified that he can lift grocery bags up to thirty (30) pounds. He had no future medical appointments at the time of his deposition.
Thus, the accused parties’ submission of the complainant’s deposition testimony, and affirmation of the accused parties’ physician are sufficient herein to make a legitimate showing that the complainant did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law, under permanent consequential limitation and significant limitation categories of the applicable law, nor under the 90/180 category of the law.
The complainant is required to come forward with viable, valid objective evidence to verify his complaints of pain, permanent injury and incapacity. The complainant has failed to meet his burden. In opposition to the accused parties’ motion, the complainant has submitted the MRI reports previously referred to above, physical therapy and acupuncture notes, chiropractic evaluations, a pain management consultation report, and an affirmed report from his treating osteopath.
The osteopath doctor’s affirmed report fails to set forth by what means, or with what instrument, the complainant’s range of motion in the cervical and lumbar spine areas was measured. Thus, the accused has failed to establish an objective basis so that the respective qualitative assessments of complainant could readily be challenged by any of the complainant’s expert(s) during cross examination at trial, and be weighed by the trier of fact. In addition, the osteopath doctor’s report does not indicate with specificity when the examination results were obtained. Contrary to the complainant’s deposition testimony wherein he stated that he was not working because he had moved, the osteopath doctor noted that the patient was not working because of the accident. He was totally disabled. The osteopath doctor notes that the complainant’s gait was not counteracting. Thus, his report appears to be inconsistent with the complainant’s testimony and internally inconsistent as to the level of the complainant’s alleged disability.
Moreover, the osteopath doctor stated in his opinion and prognosis section that, in such type of injury there are nerves and disc pathologies as well as tearing of soft tissue components without addressing the degenerative disc disease findings of the radiologist, or the complainant’s previous accident. He also opines in general terms that there can be permanent limitations of motion to the cervical and lumbar spine due to the injuries sustained. He states in vague terms that, the patient remains impaired with regard to some functional capabilities thus his opinion that the complainant has sustained traumatic injuries as a direct causal result of the accident is rendered speculative and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.
The pain management physician also examined the complainant on November 25, 2008. Although he wrote that the complainant’s level of activity is severely limited, he did not report the basis for that conclusion. Instead, he noted that the complainant’s pain, at its worst, is 3 out of 10, and that the complainant continues to work as a driver. The pain management physician further states that the complainant is not limited in activities of daily living and that the complainant’s pain does not interfere with the quantity and quality of his sleep, which the complainant reported as being six hours of restorative sleep. The pain management doctor concluded that the complainant has done well with therapy and his pain is minimal he has a mild partial disability from the motor vehicle accident dated 4/20/2008. The conclusion in November 2008 is markedly at odds with his initial statement that the complainant’s level of activity is severely limited, and also at odds with the osteopath doctor’s October 2011 report that the complainant has sustained traumatic injuries.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court has determined that the complainant has failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the issue of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law. Accordingly, the accused parties’ summary judgment motion is granted in its entirety, and the complaint is dismissed.