Sone v Qamar, 2009 NY Slip Op 09383 (1st Dept. 2009)
“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 [2006]).”
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?
