A conservative wind is blowing in recent decisions scrutinizing plaintiffs’ proof of injuries in automobile accident cases on threshold dismissal motions. The courts have shown an increasing propensity to summarily dismiss these cases for failure to establish a prima facie case of a “serious injury” under the no-fault law and to even make findings of fact in reaching these decisions.
In an earlier column, we expressed our opinion that although the Court of Appeals’ decision in Oberly v. Bangs Ambulance, 96 N.Y.295, essentially eliminated an entire category of injuries for which lawsuits could be commenced under the no-fault law, the remaining categories were more important and that Oberly would not substantially restrict plaintiffs’ recourse. The true significance of Oberly seems to be that it is symptomatic of a more-generalized conservative and restrictive approach by the courts in making threshold determinations as to the severity of injuries sustained in automobile accidents.
