Causation speculative – failure to rebut doctor

When pursuing a personal injury claim in New York, establishing causation between an accident and claimed injuries is fundamental to recovery. However, this becomes significantly more complex when a plaintiff has preexisting medical conditions. The Boone v. Milano case demonstrates how failure to properly address the relationship between preexisting conditions and accident-related injuries can doom a plaintiff’s case.

In personal injury litigation, medical experts frequently encounter situations where accident victims have prior health issues. The key challenge lies in differentiating between injuries caused by the accident versus those stemming from preexisting conditions. When medical professionals fail to provide adequate explanations for this distinction, courts may find their testimony too speculative to create genuine issues of fact.

This case illustrates a common pitfall that can lead to summary judgment dismissal - when plaintiffs’ own medical evidence undermines their claims by failing to establish clear causation. The outcome serves as a reminder that thorough medical documentation and expert testimony must specifically address preexisting conditions to survive defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Boone v. Milano— N.Y.S.2d —-, 2012 WL 2137382 (3d Dept.,2012)

“However, Rosa failed to account for why plaintiff’s preexisting physical maladies were not the source of the injuries and limitations that she now claims were caused by this accident. As such, Rosa’s affirmation does not create a factual issue that required denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff’s claims that she suffered a permanent consequential limitation as well as a significant limitation of a body organ, member, function or system were properly dismissed ( see Franchini v. Palmieri, 1 N.Y.3d 536, 537 ; Cirillo v. Swan, 95 A.D.3d 1401, ––––, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 03493, *2 [2012]; Foley v. Cunzio, 74 A.D.3d 1603, 1604–1605 ).”

Key Takeaway

Medical experts must specifically explain why accident-related injuries are not attributable to preexisting conditions. When doctors fail to address this critical distinction, their testimony becomes speculative and insufficient to defeat summary judgment motions. Even when threshold dismissals occur, proper causation analysis remains essential for any remaining claims.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post was published, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations under Insurance Law Article 51 have undergone multiple amendments, particularly regarding medical documentation requirements and causation standards. Additionally, appellate decisions have continued to refine the threshold for establishing medical causation in cases involving preexisting conditions. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when addressing causation issues in no-fault and personal injury matters.