Key Takeaway
Court grants summary judgment based on biomechanical engineer's conclusion that claimed injuries could not have resulted from the accident, shifting burden to plaintiff.
Biomechanical Evidence Successfully Defeats No-Fault Claims
In no-fault insurance litigation, proving causation between an accident and claimed injuries is fundamental to any successful claim. While medical records and testimony typically form the backbone of causation arguments, this 2012 appellate decision demonstrates how biomechanical engineering analysis can serve as powerful evidence to defeat claims at the summary judgment stage.
The case of Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. represents a significant development in New York No-Fault Insurance Law defense strategies. Insurance companies increasingly rely on expert biomechanical analysis to challenge the causal connection between accidents and alleged injuries. This case shows how such evidence, when properly presented through expert affidavits and comprehensive documentation, can establish a prima facie case for lack of causation—shifting the burden to the plaintiff to provide contrary evidence.
The decision is particularly noteworthy because it demonstrates how defendants can successfully use technical expert testimony to overcome what might otherwise appear to be straightforward injury claims, similar to other defense strategies we’ve seen in cases involving substantiated defenses.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50344(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
This is the first time I have seen this outcome. Perhaps, my faith in biomechanical reports has changed.
“In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by its biomechanical engineer… The engineer concluded that the injuries of plaintiff’s assignors could not have arisen out of the accident in question, after he reviewed, among other things, the photographs of the vehicle involved in the accident, the medical records of plaintiff and other providers regarding their treatment of the assignors, and copies of the transcripts of plaintiff’s assignors’ testimony at their examinations under oath, all of which defendant attached to its moving papers.
As defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form showing the lack of a causal connection between the accident and the injuries claimed by plaintiff’s assignors, the burden shifted to plaintiff to rebut defendant’s showing. Plaintiff, in its opposition papers, failed to do so. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should therefore have been granted.”
(Rios dissented)
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes that comprehensive biomechanical analysis, when supported by vehicle photographs, medical records, and examination testimony, can create a prima facie case for lack of causation. Once defendants meet this burden, plaintiffs must provide substantive rebuttal evidence or face summary judgment dismissal of their no-fault claims.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 decision, New York courts have continued to refine the standards for admissibility and sufficiency of biomechanical evidence in no-fault cases, with evolving precedents regarding expert qualifications and methodological requirements. Additionally, the New York No-Fault Law has undergone various regulatory amendments and fee schedule updates that may affect litigation strategies and procedural requirements. Practitioners should verify current case law developments and regulatory provisions when relying on biomechanical studies as defense evidence.
