Causation speculative after trial; 4404(a) motion granted and $200,000 jury verdict vacated

McDonald v Kohanfars reached the causation issue after a jury verdict. The appellate court found the medical connection too speculative to support that verdict.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Legal Update (September 2026): Laws of 2026, chapter 58, Part EE sections 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day serious-injury category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026; the ruling below applied the earlier statute.

The post-trial ruling

In McDonald v Kohanfars, 106 AD3d 1058 (2d Dept 2013), decided May 29, 2013, the Second Department granted the defense branch seeking to set aside the damages verdict and obtain judgment as a matter of law on serious injury. The plaintiff had already won the liability trial. The medical connection still had to be proved.

The surgeon began treating her nearly three years after the collision. He reviewed the earlier operative report but not the treatment records associated with the earlier injury and surgery. In light of the documented prior condition, the court found his causal opinion speculative even when it viewed the evidence favorably to the plaintiff.

CPLR 4404(a) permits judgment as a matter of law as well as, on different grounds, a new trial. Here the court found no rational evidentiary path to the jury’s causal conclusion, even on the plaintiff-favorable view required for that motion.

Corrections to the original shorthand

The opinion records an injury in 1992 and surgery in 1996, not two accidents in those years. The 1996 fusion was at C5–6. The 2005 CT showed degeneration at C4–5 and C6–7, and the 2008 operation addressed C4–5. The quoted repeat-surgery estimate was 5–15%, not 10–15%. Jason’s original list below contains those discrepancies and is retained as dated commentary.

His closing no-fault question is a question, not a holding. A claim for first-party benefits under Insurance Law 5102(b) has a different framework from this tort trial; its outcome cannot be inferred from McDonald.

Jason’s original comment

Jason’s original 2013 shorthand and closing question follow. The corrected chronology, spinal levels and testimony estimate are set out above; the original list is not a corrected medical history. The no-fault comparison was not decided in McDonald.

Here is the summary:

(1) Prior accidents in 1992, 1996

(2) C-5,C-6 fusion in 1996

(3) 2005 motor vehicle accident

(4) CT Scan in 2005 shows degeneration at C-5,C-6 – no traumatic findings

(5) C-5, C-6 spinal fusion again in 2008

(6) Doctor testifies that there is a 10-15% chance that those with a prior spinal fusion will need another fusion even if there is no subsequent MVA.  (Good question on cross)

(7) States within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that C-5, C-6  fusion was causally related to the 2005  motor vehicle accident.

Court holds that causation is speculative and reverses the $200,000 damages award.

Would the result of on a no-fault case where the carrier bears the burden to show that the injuries were not causally related have differed from this personal injury case, where the plaintiff has to show prima facie causation?  I do not know the answer.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.

• Russell: unchanged prior findings and unsupported aggravation
• Vargas: before-and-after knee MRIs and a triable causal issue
• Lee: missing admissible early treatment evidence
• Selective: the insurer’s insufficient affidavit and the hospital’s judgment

For review of a particular injury or no-fault dispute, contact the office.