X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Justice Schack http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=56964 IN A PERSONAL injury action, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s case for failure to meet the “serious injury” standard of Insurance Law �5102(d). Examination of plaintiff by defendant’s orthopedist found he had no disability and would not suffer any permanent injuries. Although plaintiff’s doctors found he had a bulging disc and an “equivocal” tear of the meniscus in his right knee, the court held that the doctors presented no objective evidence of the extent or degree of alleged physical limitations to support their conclusions. It noted that as “equivocal” means “capable of double interpretation,” the doctor’s diagnosis of an equivocal tear was used to mislead or confuse and was thus uncertain. Furthermore it found that plaintiff’s “self-serving” affidavit failed to address his alleged limitations in the first 180 days following his accident. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it found no triable issue of fact and granted defendant’s summary judgment motion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.