Key Takeaway
2007 New York case shows how conclusory medical expert affidavits fail to establish causation in personal injury claims, highlighting importance of substantive evidence.
Understanding Medical Expert Testimony in Causation Disputes
In New York personal injury litigation, establishing a clear causal relationship between an incident and claimed injuries is fundamental to a successful case. Courts require more than mere speculation or conclusory statements from medical experts. The quality and substance of medical testimony can make or break a claim, particularly when insurance companies challenge the connection between an accident and resulting medical treatment.
When medical experts provide affidavits or testimony, they must base their opinions on concrete evidence, detailed analysis, and sound medical reasoning. Courts will scrutinize these expert submissions carefully, looking for specific facts, methodologies, and logical connections between the incident and the claimed injuries. Summary judgment motions often turn on the sufficiency of such medical evidence.
The standard for causation requires that medical experts demonstrate how an injury directly resulted from a specific incident, rather than from pre-existing conditions or other intervening causes that might have broken the chain of causation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
New York and Presbyterian Hosp. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, 43 A.D.3d 1019 (2d Dept. 2007)
Affidavit insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to lack of causation relationship between injury and loss.
“The affidavit of its medical expert was conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by the evidence.”
Key Takeaway
Medical expert affidavits must contain specific, evidence-based analysis rather than general conclusions. Courts will reject testimony that lacks foundation, fails to address the particular facts of the case, or relies on speculation rather than medical reasoning grounded in the available evidence.
Legal Update (February 2026): The standards for medical expert testimony and causation evidence discussed in this 2011 post may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions and changes to New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules. Practitioners should verify current requirements for expert affidavits, summary judgment standards in causation disputes, and any updates to medical necessity documentation standards that may affect the sufficiency of expert testimony in personal injury and no-fault insurance cases.
