Estrella v Geico Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 00173 (2d Dept. 2013)
This was from last month and quite interesting. It is one of the few times that a Court has discussed the difference between the “permanent consequential” and “significant limitation” categories under the no-fault statute.
In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted the affirmation of Scott Gray, a physician who treated the infant plaintiff for more than one year, commencing approximately a month after the subject accident. Gray set forth quantitative findings from his initial examination and from his latest examination of the infant plaintiff, both of which revealed substantial range-of-motion limitations in the cervical and lumbar regions of the infant plaintiff’s spine. Since the second set of quantitative findings was not from a recent examination of the infant plaintiff, this evidence did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged injuries constituted a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see Griffiths v Munoz, 98 AD3d 997, 998; Lively v Fernandez, 85 AD3d 981, 982).
