Key Takeaway
New York court ruling shows that medical experts claiming symptom exaggeration must provide objective evidence to support their conclusions in no-fault threshold cases.
Understanding the Burden of Proof in Symptom Exaggeration Claims
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, defendants often attempt to defeat personal injury threshold motions by claiming that plaintiffs are exaggerating their symptoms. However, as a recent appellate court decision demonstrates, simply making such accusations without proper medical foundation can backfire spectacularly.
The threshold requirement under Insurance Law Section 5102(d) requires plaintiffs to prove they sustained a “serious injury” to pursue a lawsuit beyond no-fault benefits. When defense medical experts examine plaintiffs and claim symptom exaggeration, courts require more than mere conclusory statements. The expert must provide objective medical evidence to support their findings, or risk having their testimony deemed insufficient.
This case illustrates how defendants can sink their own legal strategy when their medical experts make unsupported claims. Understanding what constitutes objective signs of continuing disability becomes crucial for both sides in these disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Cheour v Pete & Sals Harborview Transp., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 06614 (2d Dept. 2010)
“While Dr. Farkas stated that the plaintiff presented with “extreme exaggeration of symptoms” and that the decreased ranges of motion noted by him were “not true pathologic findings” and were instead exaggerated subjective complaints, he failed to explain or substantiate those conclusions with any objective medical evidence”
An expert must explain or substantiate a claim that an examinee is lying, otherwise “no dice”.
Key Takeaway
Defense medical experts cannot simply declare that a plaintiff is exaggerating symptoms without providing objective medical evidence to support their conclusions. Courts require substantiation beyond mere opinion, and failure to provide such evidence can result in the expert’s testimony being given little weight, potentially defeating the defendant’s threshold motion.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York’s Insurance Law Section 5102(d) serious injury threshold standards and related appellate interpretations may have evolved through subsequent court decisions and regulatory amendments. Practitioners should verify current case law regarding the evidentiary standards for proving symptom exaggeration and the admissibility requirements for defense medical expert testimony in threshold motions.
