A man, age 24, alleges that at approximately 11:20 a.m., a motor vehicle he owned and operated collided with another vehicle owned by a woman and operated by a man. The woman and the driver moved for an order to dismiss the man’s complaint against them.
In support of their motion to dismiss the complaint, the opponents submit an affirmed report of examination of orthopedist, neurologist, and radiologist. The opponents also submit an un-affirmed report of the man’s radiologist. The MRI’s were purportedly performed on the dates of the reports. The court notes that the report of a physician which is not affirmed or subscribed before a notary or other authorized official is not competent evidence.
The Queens orthopedist found normal range of motion, comparing the results to normal, of the man’s spine, lower extremities, left elbow and left and right hands and shoulders and found no muscle spasms. He also found normal muscle strength, sensation and reflexes. He also provides results from numerous other orthopedic tests. He diagnosed the man’s cervical radiculopathy, resolved. The thoracolumbosacral radiculopathy, bilateral shoulder contusion, left elbow contusion and bilateral hand contusion were all resolved. He noted that the MRI of the cervical spine revealed a preexisting malformation which could affect recovery.
The Staten Island neurologist found normal range of motion, comparing the results to normal, of the man’s cervical spine and back. The man’s motor, sensory and coordination examinations also revealed normal results. The neurologist diagnosed the man’s cervical and lumbosacral paraspinal muscle sprain was resolved. He further concluded that the man had a normal neurological examination and he can continue with his current activities at work, as well as activities of daily living without restriction.
The radiologist reviews of the MRI of the man’s lumbar spine concluded that the man had a minimal disc bulge and it has no evidence of spine injury. In addition, the un-affirmed MRI reports of the man’s thoracic spine, brain and left shoulder from his radiologists revealed normal results.
As a result, the court finds that the reports of the opponent’s examining physicians were sufficiently detailed. The court finds that the opponents have made to show that the man did not sustain a serious impairment within the meaning of insurance law. With that said, the man come forward with some evidence of allege impairment to raise a triable issue of fact.
The man consequently submits an affirmation of neurologist, an affirmation of radiologist, affidavit of physical therapist , un-affirmed records covering treatment rendered to him as an inpatient at one hospital, affidavit of physical therapist and an affidavit of the man, himself.
However, the man failed to submit objective medical evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether or not he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of insurance law. Furthermore, the court also finds that the man has failed to provide sufficient evidence that the injuries are causally related to the accident.
Based on records, there is a gap in the man’s treatment between the alleged end of physical therapy and his visit to a physician, after service of the motion to dismiss the complaints. The record contains several contradictory explanations in the treatment. Consequently, the court finds that it is unnecessary to determine whether the man’s explanation for his eight month gap in treatment is reasonable, as the court has found that the man failed to raise an issue of fact even without considering the gap.
Moreover, the man’s complaints of subjective pain do not by themselves satisfy the serious impairment requirement of the no-fault law. The man also failed to submit competent medical evidence showing that the injuries he sustained caused him to be incapable of performing all of his usual and customary daily activities for ninety days of the first one hundred eighty days following the accident.
The court already examined the remaining contentions and finds them to be without merit. Furthermore, the court ordered that the opponent’s request to dismiss the complaint against them is granted.
Complication may arise and develop whenever a person experienced an accident. Sometimes, other complications will show after a long period of time after the incident occurred. If you want to prove that someone is responsible of what happen to you, the Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyers or Nassau County Injury Attorneys can be your legal counsel whenever you want to seek your rights. However, if you need someone who is expert in spine injuries, the Nassau County Spinal Injury Lawyer at Stephen Bilkis and Associates are most commendable.