Key Takeaway
New York courts require computerized range of motion tests to be properly affirmed by someone with personal knowledge to be admissible evidence in serious injury cases.
The Admissibility Challenge of Computerized Range of Motion Testing
In New York personal injury litigation, computerized range of motion testing plays a crucial role in establishing the serious injury threshold required under no-fault insurance law. These objective measurements can make or break a case by providing quantifiable evidence of physical limitations. However, as this case demonstrates, even the most sophisticated medical testing is worthless in court if it doesn’t meet basic evidentiary requirements.
The fundamental issue here involves the intersection of medical necessity and legal admissibility. While these computerized tests provide essential data for proving serious injury claims, they must be properly authenticated through sworn testimony from someone with personal knowledge of the testing procedures and results. This evidentiary hurdle often catches attorneys off guard, particularly when dealing with business records and medical documentation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Furthermore, the computerized range-of-motion tests referred to in Dr. Dudelzak’s affirmations were not in admissible form because they were not affirmed by someone with personal knowledge of the facts (see Taylor v Flaherty, 65 AD3d 1328; see also Luna v Mann, 58 AD3d 699, 700; Washington v Mendoza, 57 AD3d 972). Without admissible evidence of quantified range-of-motion limitations contemporaneous with the accident, the plaintiffs could not have established the duration of the injuries required to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they sustained a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use categories of the no-fault law (see Kuchero v Tabachnikov, 54 AD3d at 730; Ferraro v Ridge Car Serv., 49 AD3d 498).
The computerized range of motion testing is medically necessary because it is instrumental in meeting the serious injury threshold of the Insurance Law. It was not admissible, however, because it was not properly affirmed.
Key Takeaway
This case highlights a critical practice point: medical evidence, regardless of its scientific value, must comply with procedural requirements to be admissible in court. Attorneys must ensure that computerized range of motion tests are properly authenticated through affirmations from individuals with personal knowledge of the testing process and results.
