Key Takeaway
A 10-month gap in medical treatment following an auto accident rendered causation claims speculative, highlighting the importance of continuous care documentation.
In New York no-fault insurance cases, establishing a causal connection between an accident and claimed injuries is fundamental to recovering benefits. Courts scrutinize gaps in medical treatment particularly closely, as extended periods without seeking care can undermine claims that injuries were serious or ongoing. This principle becomes especially critical when plaintiffs attempt to prove they meet the serious injury threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
The timing and continuity of medical treatment serves as objective evidence of injury severity. When accident victims fail to seek treatment for extended periods, insurance companies and defense attorneys often argue that any subsequent medical care is unrelated to the original incident. This creates a challenging burden for plaintiffs who must then prove their injuries remained causally connected despite the treatment gap.
Courts have consistently held that substantial delays in seeking medical attention can render causation speculative, particularly when plaintiffs’ own medical records work against their claims. The legal system requires more than mere temporal proximity between an accident and eventual treatment - there must be a logical, medically supported connection.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Smith v. Reeves, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04856 (4th Dept. 2012)
“Defendants contend that the fact that plaintiff did not seek or receive any medical *2 treatment for 10 months following the accident renders any finding on the issue of causation speculative. We agree (cf. Perl v M_eher_, 18 NY3d 208, 217-218).”
Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces that consistent medical treatment following an accident is essential for maintaining viable injury claims. A 10-month gap between accident and treatment creates nearly insurmountable challenges in proving causation. Accident victims should seek prompt medical attention and maintain regular follow-up care to preserve their legal rights, as treatment gaps can have serious consequences even when other injury thresholds are met.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 analysis, New York courts have continued to develop precedent regarding treatment gaps and causation under Insurance Law § 5102(d), and the serious injury threshold requirements may have been refined through subsequent appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current caselaw interpreting acceptable treatment gaps and causation standards, as judicial interpretations of the “serious injury” threshold have evolved over the past decade.
