“Dr. Thompson also failed to reconcile his findings of limitation in the plaintiff’s left shoulder in May 2009, as set forth in his affirmation, with the report of the injured plaintiff’s other treating physician, Dr. Gary Fink, who found no limitations in the injured plaintiff’s left shoulder less than one month post-accident (see Raleigh v Ram, 60 AD3d 747).”
Again, how come the Appellate Term is not applying this body of law to no-fault? If an IME shows normal range of motion and plaintiff’s own medical evidence shows normal range of motion prior to the IME, then the plaintiff who attempts to show deficiencies in assignor’s range of motion post IME shoud be unable to raise an issue of fact. Simple.
