A Less Than Credible Plaintiff Sinks His Own Case

Key Takeaway

Learn how credibility issues can destroy personal injury cases in NY. Analysis of Bennice v Randall shows why honesty with your attorney is crucial for success.

In the complex world of New York personal injury law, credibility can make or break a case. When dealing with motor vehicle accidents and insurance claims on Long Island and throughout New York City, attorneys frequently encounter situations where a plaintiff’s own actions and testimony become their worst enemy. The case of Bennice v Randall, 2010 NY Slip Op 02253 (4th Dept. 2010), serves as a powerful reminder that even when liability is admitted, a lack of honesty and transparency can completely derail what should otherwise be a straightforward personal injury claim.

Understanding No-Fault’s “Grumpy Sister” – Section 5102(d)

This was a summary jury trial in a 5102(d) matter – no fault’s increasingly grumpy sister. The Supreme Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, following an adverse jury award, on the basis that a jury could not rationally find that Defendant’s admitted negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the jury’s verdict.

For those unfamiliar with New York’s insurance law landscape, Section 5102(d) of the Insurance Law sets forth the “serious injury” threshold that plaintiffs must meet to step outside the no-fault system and pursue a traditional tort claim. This threshold exists to prevent minor injury claims from clogging the court system, but it creates a complex battlefield where credibility and medical evidence become crucial battlegrounds.

The Importance of Credibility in Long Island and NYC Personal Injury Cases

I included this case in here because I like how the Appellate Division characterized the testimony of the Plaintiff:

“Here, there is a rational process by which the jury could have found that defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Plaintiff presented the testimony of several medical experts who examined him and concluded that the cervical and lumbar injuries at issue were causally related to the accident. Nevertheless, the lack of candor demonstrated by plaintiff when questioned on cross-examination about his preexisting injuries, together with his failure to advise some of those experts of his history of back pain, could have led the jury to reject the opinions of those experts (see Salisbury v Christian, 68 AD3d 1664, 1665). Further, the jury was entitled to credit the report of defendants’ expert neurologist, who concluded that plaintiff’s complaints of pain were subjective and could not be linked to the accident. The further allegation of plaintiff that the accident caused him to sustain urinary problems was not conclusively supported by his treating urologist and, in any event, that allegation was contradicted by defendants’ expert. Thus, we agree with defendants that the JHO erred in granting the motion”

The Critical Role of Full Disclosure in Medical Evaluations

What makes this case particularly instructive for personal injury attorneys practicing in Nassau, Suffolk, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx is how it demonstrates the interconnected nature of credibility, medical testimony, and case outcomes. The plaintiff in Bennice had assembled what appeared to be a strong medical case – multiple experts who examined him and concluded that his cervical and lumbar injuries were causally related to the motor vehicle accident.

However, the foundation of this medical testimony crumbled when it became apparent that the plaintiff had not been fully candid about his preexisting medical conditions. This failure to disclose his history of back pain to some of his own medical experts created a credibility gap that the defense was able to exploit effectively.

How Defense Attorneys Capitalize on Credibility Issues

Defense counsel in this case employed a classic strategy that we see regularly in New York personal injury litigation. By meticulously cross-examining the plaintiff about his medical history and demonstrating inconsistencies between his testimony and his actual medical background, they were able to cast doubt on the entirety of his case.

The defense’s expert neurologist provided testimony that the plaintiff’s complaints of pain were subjective and could not be conclusively linked to the motor vehicle accident. While subjective complaints of pain are common and often legitimate in personal injury cases, the plaintiff’s credibility problems made it easier for the jury to accept the defense expert’s conclusions over the plaintiff’s own medical witnesses.

Lessons for Personal Injury Practice in New York

Pre-Case Investigation and Client Counseling

The Bennice case underscores the critical importance of thorough client counseling and case preparation. Personal injury attorneys practicing in the New York metro area must emphasize to their clients from day one that complete honesty about their medical history is not just ethically required – it’s strategically essential.

When representing clients injured in motor vehicle accidents, slip and falls, construction accidents, or other personal injury matters, attorneys should:

Conduct comprehensive intake interviews that specifically probe for all preexisting medical conditions
Obtain complete medical records from all prior healthcare providers
Educate clients about the importance of full disclosure to all treating and examining physicians
Prepare clients for the reality that defense counsel will likely discover any undisclosed conditions during discovery

The Appellate Process and Strategic Considerations

The procedural history of Bennice also provides valuable insights into New York appellate practice. The trial court initially granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, essentially overruling the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant. This type of post-trial motion is available when a court determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict that was rendered.

However, the Appellate Division’s reversal demonstrates the high standard that courts apply when reviewing jury verdicts. Appellate courts give significant deference to jury determinations, particularly when credibility assessments are involved. The Fourth Department found that there was indeed a “rational process” by which the jury could have concluded that the defendant’s admitted negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries.

Practical Applications for New York Personal Injury Attorneys

Case Evaluation and Client Selection

The Bennice decision should influence how personal injury attorneys in Long Island and New York City evaluate potential cases. While liability may be clear-cut, the plaintiff’s credibility and the strength of the causation evidence must be carefully assessed. Even admitted negligence cannot overcome fundamental problems with witness credibility or medical causation evidence.

Discovery Strategy

For defense attorneys, this case demonstrates the value of thorough medical discovery and careful preparation for depositions and trial. The defense team’s ability to uncover the plaintiff’s undisclosed medical history and use it effectively at trial was clearly decisive.

For plaintiff’s attorneys, the lesson is equally clear: any potential credibility issues must be identified early and addressed head-on. Sometimes this means declining to represent a client whose credibility problems cannot be overcome, or it may require extensive preparation to minimize the impact of past medical issues.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if I don’t tell my lawyer about a preexisting injury?

Failing to disclose preexisting injuries to your attorney can severely damage your case. Your attorney needs complete information to properly evaluate your case, prepare your medical experts, and develop effective trial strategies. The defense will likely discover any undisclosed conditions during the discovery process, and the resulting credibility problems could destroy your case entirely.

Can I still win my case if I have preexisting injuries?

Absolutely. Many successful personal injury cases involve plaintiffs with preexisting conditions. The key is full disclosure and proper medical evaluation to distinguish between preexisting conditions and new injuries or aggravation of existing conditions caused by the accident in question.

What is the difference between no-fault and Section 5102(d) cases?

No-fault insurance covers basic economic losses regardless of fault, but limits your right to sue. Section 5102(d) creates the “serious injury” threshold – if your injuries meet certain statutory categories and severity requirements, you can step outside the no-fault system and pursue a traditional personal injury lawsuit against the at-fault party.

How does the appeals process work in New York personal injury cases?

In New York, appeals from Supreme Court decisions in personal injury cases typically go to the Appellate Division. The appellate court reviews the trial court’s legal determinations but gives significant deference to jury findings, especially regarding credibility and factual disputes.

Protecting Your Rights After a Personal Injury

The Bennice v Randall case serves as a stark reminder that credibility is the cornerstone of successful personal injury litigation. Whether you’ve been injured in a car accident in Nassau County, suffered a slip and fall in Manhattan, or been hurt in a construction accident in Brooklyn, your honesty and transparency with your legal and medical team will ultimately determine your case’s success or failure.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to someone else’s negligence, it’s crucial to work with an experienced personal injury attorney who understands the complexities of New York law and the importance of building a credible, well-documented case from day one.

Contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum today at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation about your personal injury case. Our experienced team serves clients throughout Long Island and New York City, providing aggressive representation while maintaining the highest standards of legal ethics and client service.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York’s Insurance Law Section 5102(d) and related no-fault provisions may have been subject to regulatory amendments, fee schedule updates, or procedural modifications through legislative action or Department of Financial Services regulations. Practitioners should verify current serious injury threshold requirements, procedural standards, and case law developments when handling no-fault and personal injury matters.

Filed under: Directed Verdicts Procedural Issues

A less than credible Plaintiff sinks his own case