Key Takeaway
Learn how New York courts determine serious injury under Insurance Law 5102(d). Analysis of Sone v Qamar where 20-degree spinal limitation deemed insignificant.
The Critical Distinction Between “Any” Injury and “Serious” Injury Under New York Law
In New York’s complex no-fault insurance system, one of the most contentious and frequently litigated issues revolves around what constitutes a “serious injury” under Insurance Law 5102(d). This determination can mean the difference between thousands of dollars in compensation and walking away empty-handed. For accident victims in Nassau County, Suffolk County, and throughout New York City, understanding this threshold is crucial to protecting their legal rights.
A recent court decision in Sone v Qamar highlights just how narrow this threshold can be—and how a seemingly significant injury can be deemed legally “insignificant.” This case serves as both a cautionary tale and a crucial learning opportunity for anyone involved in motor vehicle accident litigation on Long Island or in the greater New York metropolitan area.
The Sone v Qamar Decision: When 20 Degrees Isn’t Enough
The Case Facts
Sone v Qamar, 2009 NY Slip Op 09383 (1st Dept. 2009), presents a stark illustration of how strict New York courts can be when evaluating serious injury claims. The court’s analysis reveals the harsh reality facing many accident victims:
“Defendant satisfied her initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law 5102(d). Defendant submitted the affirmed report of a neurologist who found no neurological deficits and noted only a 20 degree limitation on flexion in plaintiff’s lumbosacral spine.
Plaintiff failed to meet her consequent burden to provide evidence which raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether she sustained such a serious injury, instead relying on the finding of defendant’s doctor. However, the limitation noted by defendant’s doctor is not significant within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d) (see Style v Joseph, 32 AD3d 212, 214 ).”
The Shocking Conclusion
The court’s conclusion raises a profound question that should concern every accident victim: A 20 degree deficiency in range of motion is insignificant? Does this mean that further treatment would not medically necessary since the injured person’s injury is insignificant?
This decision underscores a fundamental problem in New York’s personal injury law: the disconnect between what feels significant to an injured person and what courts consider legally significant.
Understanding New York’s Serious Injury Threshold
The Legal Framework
Under Insurance Law 5102(d), a “serious injury” is defined as:
- Death
- Dismemberment
- Significant disfigurement
- A fracture
- Loss of a fetus
- Permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system
- Permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member
- Significant limitation of use of a body function or system
- A medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment
The “Significant Limitation” Standard
The most commonly litigated category is “significant limitation of use of a body function or system.” This is where cases like Sone v Qamar typically fall, and where the courts’ interpretation can be surprisingly restrictive.
The Real-World Impact of “Insignificant” Injuries
What a 20-Degree Limitation Actually Means
To understand the practical impact of the Sone decision, consider what a 20-degree limitation in spinal flexion actually means for an accident victim:
Daily Life Challenges:
- Difficulty bending to tie shoes or pick up objects
- Pain when getting in and out of cars
- Challenges with household tasks like loading dishwashers or making beds
- Reduced ability to participate in recreational activities
- Potential long-term progression of spinal problems
Professional Impact:
- Limitations for workers in physical jobs
- Reduced productivity in office settings due to pain and stiffness
- Potential career limitations for those in active professions
- Need for workplace accommodations
Medical and Economic Consequences:
- Ongoing physical therapy needs
- Prescription pain medications
- Potential for future surgical intervention
- Lost wages from medical appointments and reduced capacity
The Paradox of “Insignificant” Treatment
One of the most troubling implications of the Sone decision is the suggestion that if an injury is legally “insignificant,” then perhaps ongoing treatment is not medically necessary. This creates a dangerous precedent where insurance companies might argue that continued care for a 20-degree spinal limitation is unwarranted.
This reasoning fails to account for:
- The progressive nature of spinal conditions
- The importance of maintaining function through therapy
- The role of treatment in preventing further deterioration
- Individual patient factors that affect recovery
Strategies for Overcoming the “Insignificant” Label
Building a Stronger Medical Case
For personal injury attorneys practicing in Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City, the Sone decision emphasizes the importance of comprehensive medical documentation. Successful serious injury claims require:
Detailed Range of Motion Testing:
- Pre-accident baselines when possible
- Objective measurements from multiple time points
- Comparison with normal ranges for the patient’s age and demographics
- Testing under varying conditions (morning vs. evening, before vs. after activity)
Functional Impact Documentation:
- Detailed descriptions of daily living limitations
- Work capacity evaluations
- Recreational activity restrictions
- Sleep disturbance documentation
Progressive Medical Evidence:
- Initial emergency room records
- Acute care documentation
- Physical therapy progress notes
- Specialist evaluations over time
Frequently Asked Questions About New York’s Serious Injury Threshold
Q: Is there a specific degree of range of motion limitation that automatically qualifies as “serious injury”?
A: No, there is no bright-line rule. Courts consider each case individually, looking at factors such as the plaintiff’s age, pre-accident condition, and functional impact. However, cases like Sone suggest that limitations of 20 degrees or less face an uphill battle.
Q: Can multiple minor limitations combine to create a serious injury claim?
A: Yes, courts will consider the cumulative impact of multiple limitations. A case with several minor limitations that collectively impact daily function may have a stronger chance than a single minor limitation.
Q: How important is the plaintiff’s own testimony about functional limitations?
A: While plaintiff testimony is important, it’s rarely sufficient on its own. Courts require objective medical evidence to support subjective complaints of functional limitation.
Q: Does the Sone decision apply to all types of injuries?
A: The decision specifically addressed spinal range of motion limitations. However, its restrictive approach to interpreting “significant limitation” has been applied more broadly in New York courts.
Q: What can accident victims do to protect their claims early in the process?
A: The most important steps are seeking immediate medical attention, following all treatment recommendations, and maintaining detailed records of how the injury affects daily activities.
The Importance of Experienced Legal Representation
The Sone decision illustrates why personal injury cases involving the serious injury threshold require attorneys with specific experience in New York no-fault law. The technical requirements for proving a serious injury claim are complex and demanding.
For those dealing with the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident in Nassau County, Suffolk County, or New York City, don’t let the label of “insignificant” discourage you from seeking the compensation you deserve. The law may set a high bar, but with proper medical documentation and experienced legal representation, even challenging cases can be successfully pursued.
The question “Was that injury really insignificant?” should be answered not just by looking at degrees of motion, but by understanding the full impact on a person’s life, livelihood, and future.
Call 516-750-0595 to speak with experienced personal injury attorneys who understand the complexities of New York’s serious injury threshold and will fight to ensure your case receives the thorough evaluation it deserves.
The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is unique, and the outcome of any particular case cannot be predicted based on this information alone.
Related Articles
- Understanding the serious injury threshold and range of motion limitations
- Building strong medical evidence to counter summary judgment motions
- How courts evaluate medical necessity in no-fault insurance cases
- Establishing a prima facie case for medical necessity
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2009, Insurance Law 5102(d) and related regulations governing the serious injury threshold have been subject to numerous court interpretations and potential regulatory refinements. The specific case law cited and procedural standards for establishing serious injury claims may have evolved significantly over the past 16+ years. Practitioners should verify current provisions of Insurance Law 5102(d), recent appellate decisions, and any updated medical documentation requirements when evaluating serious injury thresholds.
