Key Takeaway
McDuffie v Rodriguez: acute injury evidence raised a causation issue; the opinion did not hold that defense experts failed to review MRI films.
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 256 published articles analyzing 5102(d) issues 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 First Department reinstated the complaint in McDuffie v Rodriguez because the treating physician identified acute accident-related injuries as well as degeneration. The opinion did not reject the defense motion because its experts failed to review MRI films.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Legal Update (September 2026): Laws of 2026, chapter 58, Part EE sections 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day serious-injury category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026; the older ruling below applied the earlier statute.
What the opinion actually says
McDuffie v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 568 (1st Dept 2010), decided April 27, 2010, expressly held that the defendants met their initial burden. Their experts examined the plaintiff and reviewed medical records and MRI studies, attributing the right-knee condition to pre-existing osteoarthritis.
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 treating physician’s contrary evidence raised a factual issue. The court reversed summary judgment and reinstated the complaint; it did not award damages or decide causation at trial.
Jason’s comment below questions what the experts reviewed. The published opinion uses the words MRI studies but does not resolve a reports-versus-films distinction. That question cannot be promoted into the court’s holding.
Read this beside Grant: in both First Department cases, the treating physicians supplied enough evidence to defeat a supported defense motion. They do not dispense with a supported causal explanation in every case. For the distinction between a motion and a trial, see CPLR 3212(b).
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s original 2010 observation follows, including the source’s typographical errors. The reports-versus-films inference is his commentary, not a finding stated in the opinion.
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….”
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Grant: competing MRI-based causal explanations
- Goodwin: prior asymptomatic condition and measured restrictions
- Valentin: unanswered degeneration in the medical records
- Bobbio: missing medical support for aggravation
For review of a particular injury or no-fault dispute, contact the office.
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.
Keep Reading
More 5102(d) issues 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
Significant limitation v. permanent consequential, again
New York court ruling creates apparent contradiction in no-fault threshold requirements for significant limitation vs. permanent consequential limitation cases.
May 22, 2021
It was not the partner affirmation this time
NY court rules on policy exhaustion defense failure when insurer cited 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 for out-of-state policy, creating priority payment issues in no-fault case.
Jun 29, 2017
A case better left unappealed
When typos in court filings undermine insurance companies' coverage defenses, even simple clerical errors can have significant legal consequences in no-fault cases.
Aug 29, 2014
District Nassau justifies IME no-show coverage defnese based upon Stephen Fogel
Nassau District Court upholds IME no-show coverage defense using Stephen Fogel precedent, ruling condition precedent defenses never waive in no-fault cases.
Apr 13, 2011
No need to file cancellation with DMV?
Global Liberty v Ho Suk Shin distinguishes replacing an insured vehicle from terminating a policy. Jason’s original 2020 commentary is preserved.
May 9, 2020Was 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 5102(d) issues 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.
