Justice Robert J. McDonald

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Pedestrian Hong sued to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained from a car accident in this negligence action. His bill of particulars claimed he sustained serious injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine, left shoulder and right knee. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint arguing Hong did not suffer a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law §5102(d). Their doctors both opined there was no objective evidence of orthopaedic disability, or findings that could be attributed to the subject accident. Hong’s doctor, Sun, found restricted ranges of motion in Hong’s right knee and left shoulder. Sun examined Hong in 2017 still finding restricted ranges of motion, opining the injuries were permanent in nature and causally related to the accident. The court ruled defendants proof was sufficient to meet their prima facie burden showing Hong did not sustain a serious injury, but found Hong raised triable issues noting he had significant limitations in ranges of motion contemporaneously to the accident, and upon recent examination that were permanent and causally elated to the accident. The gap in treatment was also adequately explained by a denial of no-fault coverage, thus, defendants’ motion was denied.

Justice Robert J. McDonald

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Pedestrian Hong sued to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained from a car accident in this negligence action. His bill of particulars claimed he sustained serious injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine, left shoulder and right knee. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint arguing Hong did not suffer a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law §5102(d). Their doctors both opined there was no objective evidence of orthopaedic disability, or findings that could be attributed to the subject accident. Hong’s doctor, Sun, found restricted ranges of motion in Hong’s right knee and left shoulder. Sun examined Hong in 2017 still finding restricted ranges of motion, opining the injuries were permanent in nature and causally related to the accident. The court ruled defendants proof was sufficient to meet their prima facie burden showing Hong did not sustain a serious injury, but found Hong raised triable issues noting he had significant limitations in ranges of motion contemporaneously to the accident, and upon recent examination that were permanent and causally elated to the accident. The gap in treatment was also adequately explained by a denial of no-fault coverage, thus, defendants’ motion was denied.