Key Takeaway
Frias v James: the defense neurologist's unexplained degeneration opinion failed on limitation claims. Jason's radiology comment was not the court's.
This article is part of our ongoing causation coverage, with 178 published articles analyzing causation issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
The defense neurologist in Frias v James, 69 AD3d 466 (1st Dept 2010), measured restrictions in the plaintiff’s movement but attributed them to degeneration without explaining why. That left the defense short of its initial showing on the permanent-consequential and significant-limitation categories.
Legal Update (September 2026): Chapter 58 of 2026, Part EE §§ 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day serious-injury category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. This historical case predates that amendment.
Why the affirmation fell short
The First Department noted that the neurologist neither elaborated on the degeneration conclusion nor referred to MRI findings showing degeneration. Because the defense had not met its initial burden on those categories, the court did not need to assess the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposing proof on them.
The ruling was mixed. The plaintiff’s separate 90/180-day claim was dismissed: the bill of particulars showed no qualifying curtailment of activities, and the plaintiff did not address that claim on appeal. Frias did not give the plaintiff judgment on liability or establish that every alleged injury was caused by the accident.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
The radiology recommendation was Jason’s, not the court’s
The published opinion contains no instruction to buy a radiological review at a particular price. The sentence preserved below was Jason’s litigation commentary. It should not be presented as a court quotation, a mandatory expense or a promise that another report would have changed the outcome.
Nor did Frias apply a criminal beyond-reasonable-doubt standard. It addressed the sufficiency of the evidence on a civil summary-judgment motion. The Torres and Campanile comparison below follows that same question: what did the moving party actually establish?
Jason’s original 2010 commentary
Jason’s January 2010 comment is preserved as historical opinion, not a court instruction or a current price estimate.
The carrier should have paid the $350 and obtained a radiological review. It is as simple as that.
Frequently Asked Questions
What should I do if an insurance company’s doctor says my injuries are pre-existing?
Review the actual explanation with counsel. In Frias, the defense neurologist attributed measured restrictions to degeneration without elaboration or supporting MRI findings, which failed to establish the required initial showing.
How important is it to get an MRI after an accident?
Frias did not order an MRI or make imaging mandatory after every accident. Whether testing is appropriate is a clinical decision; an image alone also does not establish what caused a condition.
Can I challenge a medical expert’s opinion that seems unfair?
An opinion can be challenged for a missing explanation or evidentiary basis, not simply because it favors the other side. Frias concerned a specific unexplained degeneration conclusion.
What makes a medical expert opinion legally sufficient in New York?
The opinion must support the proposition advanced on the motion. Frias shows why identifying a restriction and labeling it degenerative, without explaining the connection, may be insufficient.
How long do I have to file a personal injury lawsuit in New York?
Frias did not decide a filing-deadline issue. Deadlines depend on the claim, defendant and circumstances, and may include earlier notice requirements. Counsel should check them promptly rather than infer them from this case’s medical chronology.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- Preexisting injuries and causation: topic hub
- Valentin: degeneration in the plaintiff’s own medical records
- Torres and Campanile: when the causation burden shifts
- Mnatcakanova: a causal conclusion that did not answer degeneration
- Black: reasons required for a claimed aggravation
- Frank: minor-impact evidence and review of a jury verdict
- Grant: supported competing MRI-based explanations
- Fealy: early knee complaints in a separate no-fault motion
For review of a particular claim, contact the firm.
Last reviewed: September 2026. Original publication date retained.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Causation in New York Personal Injury & No-Fault Law
Causation — proving that the defendant's negligence or the accident caused the plaintiff's injuries — is an essential element of every personal injury and no-fault claim. New York courts distinguish between proximate cause, intervening causes, and pre-existing conditions that may have been aggravated by an accident. The legal standards for establishing causation through medical evidence and the defenses available to challenge causal connection are analyzed in depth across these articles.
178 published articles in Causation
Keep Reading
More Causation Analysis
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021
Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021
Degeneration from the App Div
Campbell v Drammeh: unanswered degenerative findings, separate spine and shoulder proof, and an unexplained cessation of treatment.
May 22, 2018
Parties cannot stipulate away issues of pure coverage
NY Court rules parties cannot stipulate away pure coverage issues in no-fault insurance disputes. Key precedent for coverage defense strategies.
Apr 14, 2015
Successful summary judgment: Plaintiff Assignor jumped on a parked car and walked away and the complaint was dismissed
Analysis of successful insurance defense summary judgment in NY no-fault case involving parked vehicle. Evidentiary requirements for medical providers.
Jan 10, 2013
District Court Found That a Detailed Affidavit Was Sufficient to Show That the Vehicle Was Not Involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident
Learn how a detailed affidavit successfully proved a vehicle was not involved in a motor vehicle accident in Nassau County District Court.
Jan 9, 2010Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
5 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What should I do if an insurance company’s doctor says my injuries are pre-existing?
Review the actual explanation with counsel. In Frias, the defense neurologist attributed measured restrictions to degeneration without elaboration or supporting MRI findings, which failed to establish the required initial showing.
How important is it to get an MRI after an accident?
Frias did not order an MRI or make imaging mandatory after every accident. Whether testing is appropriate is a clinical decision; an image alone also does not establish what caused a condition.
Can I challenge a medical expert’s opinion that seems unfair?
An opinion can be challenged for a missing explanation or evidentiary basis, not simply because it favors the other side. Frias concerned a specific unexplained degeneration conclusion.
What makes a medical expert opinion legally sufficient in New York?
The opinion must support the proposition advanced on the motion. Frias shows why identifying a restriction and labeling it degenerative, without explaining the connection, may be insufficient.
How long do I have to file a personal injury lawsuit in New York?
Frias did not decide a filing-deadline issue. Deadlines depend on the claim, defendant and circumstances, and may include earlier notice requirements. Counsel should check them promptly rather than infer them from this case's medical chronology.
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a causation matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
