Key Takeaway
Court case highlights crucial distinction between reviewing MRI reports versus actual films when defending against causation claims in personal injury cases.
Understanding Causation Defenses in Personal Injury Cases
In New York personal injury litigation, defendants often attempt to escape liability by arguing that a plaintiff’s injuries weren’t caused by the accident in question. These causation defenses typically rely on medical expert testimony suggesting that the plaintiff’s condition stems from pre-existing degenerative changes rather than acute trauma from the incident. However, the strength of such defenses can hinge on seemingly minor details about what evidence was actually examined.
The McDuffie v Rodriguez case from the First Department illustrates an important subtlety that personal injury attorneys must carefully consider when evaluating causation challenges. This decision demonstrates how the thoroughness of a defendant’s medical examination can determine whether their causation defense succeeds or fails.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
McDuffie v Rodriguez, 2010 NY Slip Op 03366 (1st Dept. 2010)
“Defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury by submitting the affirmed reports of experts who, after examining plaintiff and reviewing her medical records and MRI studies, found a lack of causation between her complaint of right knee pain and the subsequent arthroscopic surgical repair and the accident, and instead attributed plaintiff’s condition to pre-existing degenerative osteoarthritis (see Jean v Kabaya, 63 AD3d 509 ). In opposition, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact, as her treating physician noted acute injuries related to the automobile accident as well as degenerative changes. Defendants’ remaining arguments need not be addressed.”
What was not reviewed? The MRI FILMS.
Why does this matter? Well, what is the standard to defeat to a causation defense based upon a radiologist’s review of the films finding that the condition is degenerative?
I will tell you this much: it is more than some “hysician not acute injuries related to the automobile accident….”
Key Takeaway
The distinction between reviewing MRI studies versus examining actual MRI films can be crucial in causation defense cases. When defendants’ experts only review written reports rather than the underlying imaging, it may create an opening for plaintiffs to successfully challenge the causation defense, even with relatively modest contrary evidence from treating physicians.
This case connects to broader themes in New York no-fault litigation, where breaking the chain of causation remains a viable defense strategy, but only when properly executed with comprehensive medical review.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2010, New York’s Insurance Regulation 68 has undergone multiple amendments that may affect no-fault coverage determinations and causation analyses in personal injury cases. Additionally, appellate courts have continued to refine the standards for medical expert testimony regarding causation defenses, and the fee schedules governing medical examinations have been updated several times. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when evaluating causation challenges in personal injury litigation.
