Why Trust This Analysis
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.
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)
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.
“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.
Related Articles
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, 2021
NY 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.
Nov 25, 2019
They call her crash
Court analysis of four accidents determining which qualify for serious injury under 5102(d), examining significant limitation vs permanent consequential categories.
Mar 21, 2012
The need for contemporaneous records
Second Department clarifies that contemporaneous medical examinations aren't required to defeat summary judgment motions under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Apr 10, 2019
Oh somebody had a bad day.
Court case highlights attorney malpractice risks in SUM claims when settling without insurer consent, emphasizing professional duty requirements.
Dec 17, 2017
The inability to recall which shoulder was hurt damages the plaintiff’s case
In Fludd v Pena, a plaintiff's inability to recall which shoulder was injured and failure to complain about shoulder pain at IME severely damaged their case.
Nov 14, 2014Was 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 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.
