Key Takeaway
Grant v United Pavers: supported competing medical opinions saved most claims, but not the historical 90/180-day theory.
This article is part of our ongoing causation coverage, with 52 published articles analyzing causation 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.
In Grant v United Pavers, the treating physicians’ MRI-based explanation and clinical treatment raised a factual issue about accident-related injuries. The court allowed most of the claim to continue, but left the 90/180-day claim dismissed.
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 survived, and what did not
In Grant v United Pavers Co., Inc., 91 AD3d 499 (1st Dept 2012), the defense submitted evidence of resolved injuries and degeneration. The treating physicians relied on MRI evidence and their clinical treatment. Although they did not expressly rebut each degenerative finding, the First Department found their different causal explanation sufficient to raise a factual issue.
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 January 17, 2012 decision therefore modified the dismissal order rather than restoring every theory. Surviving summary judgment did not establish liability, prove damages or require a jury to accept the physicians’ opinions.
Why the Perl comparison matters
Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208 (2011), cited in Grant, likewise left a disputed causal explanation for the factfinder. It did not replace medical support with mere plausibility. Nor did Grant create a separate trial burden under which an equally plausible account automatically proves causation.
Read Grant beside Valentin and Bobbio, linked below: those records lacked an adequate explanation of the documented prior conditions. The question is what the actual examination, imaging and history support, not how many experts each side retained.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Valentin: unanswered degeneration in the medical records
- Goodwin: prior asymptomatic condition and measured restrictions
- Bobbio: missing medical support for aggravation
- McDuffie: acute knee injuries alongside degeneration
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 2,600 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.
About This Topic
Causation in New York Personal Injury & No-Fault Law
Causation — proving that the defendant's negligence or the accident caused the plaintiff's injuries — is an essential element of every personal injury and no-fault claim. New York courts distinguish between proximate cause, intervening causes, and pre-existing conditions that may have been aggravated by an accident. The legal standards for establishing causation through medical evidence and the defenses available to challenge causal connection are analyzed in depth across these articles.
52 published articles in Causation
Keep Reading
More Causation Analysis
Defense Engineer Says Your Injury Is Degenerative? Bonilla-Acosta v Max Services (2026)
A NY appeals court held a defense engineer was qualified on crash force but not shown qualified to call spine injuries degenerative. What it means for you.
Oct 23, 2026
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
The declaratory judgment failed to name everybody
New York court ruling on declaratory judgment privity in no-fault insurance cases involving assignee providers and material misrepresentation claims.
Mar 21, 2013
Neurologist’s Insufficient Affirmation: Understanding Causal Connection in Personal Injury Cases
Frias v James: the defense neurologist's unexplained degeneration opinion failed on limitation claims. Jason's radiology comment was not the court's.
Jan 14, 2010
There was no accident
Pavlova v Allstate case analysis: when insurers successfully prove "no accident occurred" through examination under oath testimony to deny no-fault coverage claims.
Jul 7, 2018
Progressive cannot prove they mailed documents
Progressive insurance company fails to prove proper mailing of claim denials, court finds insufficient evidence of standard office procedures in NY no-fault case.
May 4, 2015Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
6 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What is medical causation in personal injury law?
Medical causation asks whether an accident caused the claimed injury or aggravated an earlier condition. A diagnosis alone does not establish that connection.
How do courts handle conflicting expert medical opinions?
The court considers whether supported medical evidence creates a factual dispute. Grant found one on its particular record; a bare disagreement is not enough in every case.
Can insurance companies dismiss my case if they have a medical expert who disagrees with my doctor?
An insurer does not dismiss a lawsuit by issuing an opinion. A court may grant a supported summary-judgment motion if the opposing evidence fails to raise a material factual issue.
What makes a medical expert opinion “equally plausible”?
In Grant, the court used that description for the treating physicians' explanation based on MRI evidence and clinical treatment. It was a record-specific conclusion, not a substitute for medical support.
How important is the timing of symptom onset in proving causation?
The chronology can support or undermine an explanation, but timing alone does not prove causation. Perl distinguishes evidence linking symptoms to the accident from measurements of later severity.
What should I do if the defense claims my injuries are degenerative?
Have the actual imaging, reports and earlier history reviewed. The response should explain the medical basis for accident-related injury or aggravation and address the competing cause.
Was 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 causation 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.
