The following papers were read and considered in the aforementioned motion submitted on December 9, 2021: NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 39-64 DECISION & ORDER Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide certain authorizations pursuant to a demand therefore dated September 25, 2020. Plaintiff claims to have sustained personal injuries when he was caused to fall at Defendant’s premises, due to Defendant’s negligence. In the subject demand at issue, Defendant seeks authorizations for medical records related to Plaintiff’s Marfan Syndrome, unlimited in time. Apparently, Marfan Syndrome is a congenital, inherited condition affecting the connective tissue supporting one’s internal organs. Although it can affect any part of the body, it primarily affects the heart, blood vessels, and bones. Those afflicted with this syndrome can suffer from faulty connective tissue that weakens the Aorta. Concerning the eyes, this condition can weaken their structure and the ability to focus. There is also a risk of detachment or tears of the retina, or damage to the optic nerve. It can also have an impact on the life expectancy of the sufferer. Plaintiff opposes the demand, taking the position that he is not claiming an exacerbation of his Marfan Syndrome, and cites to case authority for the proposition that a plaintiff claiming personal injury does not place his or her medical condition at issue for unrelated conditions or injuries. The lack of a claim of exacerbation, as a basis to oppose, is misplaced. The real issue is causation, i.e., whether or not Plaintiff’s current claimed conditions, which include (but are not limited to) a brain bleed, retinal detachment, and an artery aneurysm are the result of trauma. Plaintiff’s Bill of Particulars also alleges injury to the tendons, ligaments, muscles, blood vessels, cartilages, nerves and soft tissue, by reason of tearing, irritation, and injury. It is further asserted in the Bill that such things affected the blood supply of said areas accompanied by pain and limitation of motion. These are very broad allegations of injury, placing Plaintiff’s entire medical condition in controversy (Geraci v. National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., 255 AD 2d 945, 946). Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s position that the lack of a claim of exacerbation of his Marfan Syndrome precludes discovery thereof, congenital conditions can be at issue insofar as they may relate to the ultimate question of causation (see e.g., Moreno v. Roberts, 161 AD 2d 1099, 1101 (congenital spinal stenosis); Shamika R. v. City of New York, 117 AD 3d 574, 575 (cerebral palsey and spastic diplegia). Further, there are several references to Plaintiff’s syndrome in the medical records of New York Presbyterian (NYSCEF Doc. 44) and Northwell Health (NYSCEF Doc. 43) (see, Koleman v. Quinton Fitness Equipment Inc., 24 AD 3d 185, 186) as well as his deposition testimony of August 31, 2020 (p. 41, lines 16-21) in which he stated that he required eye surgery as a result of his Marfan Syndrome. Given the broad allegations of injuries, and the nature of his Marfan Syndrome, Plaintiff’s entire medical condition has been placed in controversy, especially insofar as his medical problems are concerned. Such other medical conditions may be relevant on the issue of damages, as well. (Avila v. 106 Corona Realty Corp., 300 AD 2d 266; (Geraci v. National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., 255 AD 2d 945; 945); see also, Moore v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 56 Misc. 3d 1222 (A)), as would the question of the impact of Plaintiff’s life expectancy on the issue of damages (Id.). It must be remembered that admissibility of the discovery sought is not the test to be applied (Wiseman v. American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD 2d 230, 237 (2d Dept.)). The test is still one of usefulness and reason (Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 NY 2d 403, 406). Given the long-standing nature of Plaintiff’s congenital condition, Defendant is entitled to authorizations for medical records unrestricted by date (Shamika R. v. City of New York, Supra). Motion granted. Plaintiff shall provide authorizations as stated in the subject demand. This is the decision and order of the Court. Dated: January 6, 2022
