Key Takeaway
Court analysis of four accidents determining which qualify for serious injury under 5102(d), examining significant limitation vs permanent consequential categories.
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 89 published articles analyzing 5102(d) issues 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.
Hedgecock v Pedro, 2012 NY Slip Op 02005 (4th Dept. 2012)
Four accidents and a court having to discern which accidents are sufficient to sustain a serious injury.
I am not sure if there is a no-fault link except for the nascent issue of which claim or insurance policy should cover the medical bills. But, what interests me is that the court actually delineated between the “significant limitation” and “permanent consequential” categories of 5102(d). It is also another example of the role that chiropractor’s play in these cases.
“In opposition to the motions, plaintiff submitted her entire deposition testimony, the affidavit of her treating chiropractor and the affidavit of her treating neurologist**.**
(1) Combined effect of all accidents: Inasmuch as the treating neurologist discussed the combined effect of all four accidents on plaintiff’s symptoms, his affidavit fails to raise a triable issue of fact whether the first or second accident caused a serious injury (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).
(2) Accident number one: With respect to the first accident, the affidavit of the treating chiropractor detailed plaintiff’s worsening migraine symptoms following that accident and noted that there were muscle tension and trigger points upon palpation following that accident. The treating chiropractor also stated that plaintiff’s symptoms improved prior to the second accident, but that her medical condition had not returned to the state it had been in immediately prior to the first accident.
(3) Accident number two: With respect to the second accident, the treating chiropractor stated that plaintiff’s symptoms had not improved with treatment prior to the third accident, which occurred nearly one year after the second accident, and he outlined the quantitative restrictions of the range of motion of her cervical and lumbar spine, comparing those restrictions to the normal range of motion (see Burke v Moran, 85 AD3d 1710, 1711; cf. Houston v Geerlings, 83 AD3d 1448, 1449-1450). Further, plaintiff was granted a medical withdrawal from her graduate studies immediately following the second accident based upon the frequency and intensity of her migraine headaches, each of which lasted up to 24 hours and prevented her from driving, attending classes or doing household chores.
(4) The Courts decides: Thus, we conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat those parts of each motion with respect to the significant limitation of use category (see generally Roll v Gavitt, 77 AD3d 1412), as well as the 90/180-day category (see generally Houston, 83 AD3d at 1450). Because plaintiff’s treating chiropractor stated that plaintiff’s symptoms had not improved in the nearly one-year period between the second and third accidents, we conclude that plaintiff also raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat that part of the Sterman defendants’ motion with respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use category (see generally Roll, 77 AD3d 1412). We further conclude, however, that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat that part of Pedro’s motion with respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use category, inasmuch as plaintiff’s treating chiropractor stated that her symptoms improved prior to the second accident, and thus that the court erred in denying the motion in its entirety. We therefore modify the order accordingly.”
Related Articles
- Understanding the distinction between permanent consequential and significant limitation categories
- Critical mistakes that can destroy your 5102(d) personal injury case
- When IME doctors must explain their findings about restricted range of motion
- How suboptimal effort can derail serious injury threshold cases
- Personal Injury Practice Area
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, Insurance Law Section 5102(d) serious injury threshold standards may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions and regulatory guidance. Practitioners should verify current judicial interpretations of “significant limitation” and “permanent consequential limitation” categories, as well as any updates to evidentiary standards for medical affidavits in serious injury determinations.
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 2,353 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.
Keep Reading
More 5102(d) issues Analysis
Significant limitation v. permanent consequential, again
New York court ruling creates apparent contradiction in no-fault threshold requirements for significant limitation vs. permanent consequential limitation cases.
May 22, 2021NY Serious Injury Threshold: When Suboptimal Effort Derails Personal Injury Cases
Learn how NY's serious injury threshold works and why suboptimal effort can destroy your personal injury case. Expert Long Island attorney guidance. Call 516-750-0595.
Nov 25, 201990/180 claim has serious consequences despite 5102(d) dismissal of permanent consequential and significan limitation
New York no-fault law creates paradoxical situations where courts dismiss serious injury claims yet allow full damages under 90/180 day categories, highlighting systemic...
May 24, 2012No-Fault Insurance Claims: Causation Requirements and Economic Loss Recovery in New York
Expert analysis of no-fault insurance causation requirements and economic loss recovery in New York. Serving Long Island and NYC. Call (516) 750-0595.
Feb 16, 2010“trauma increase the rate of disc dessication”
Court ruling shows how medical testimony linking trauma to accelerated disc degeneration can overcome preexisting condition defenses in personal injury cases.
Mar 14, 2018Interesting discussion as to causation
New York court dismisses injury case where plaintiff failed to prove accident caused knee surgery, highlighting importance of objective medical evidence in causation claims.
Mar 23, 2015Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the serious injury threshold under Insurance Law §5102(d)?
New York Insurance Law §5102(d) defines 'serious injury' as a personal injury that results in death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, a fracture, loss of a fetus, permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system, permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, significant limitation of use of a body function or system, or a medically determined injury that prevents the person from performing substantially all of their daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident.
Why does the serious injury threshold matter?
In New York, you cannot sue for pain and suffering damages in a motor vehicle accident case unless your injuries meet the serious injury threshold. This is a critical hurdle in every car accident lawsuit. Insurance companies aggressively challenge whether plaintiffs meet this threshold, often relying on IME doctors who find no objective limitations. Successfully establishing a serious injury requires detailed medical evidence, including quantified range-of-motion findings and correlation to the accident.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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 5102(d) issues 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.