Brand v Evangelista, 103 AD3d 539 (1st Dept. 2013)
“[d]efendant’s physicians required to review plaintiff’s medical records, since they detailed the specific tests they used in their personal examination of plaintiff, which revealed full range of motion (see Fuentes v Sanchez, 91 AD3d 418, 419 [1st Dept 2012]; Zhijian Yang v Alston, 73 AD3d 562 [1st Dept 2010]).
…[H]is physicians did not tender any recent quantified range-of-motion measurements to demonstrate any limitations he may have had from his herniated discs, or following his second back surgery.
Point of this case is that the line: “well you did not look at the MRI’s or EMG’s” should not be fatal to an insurance carrier’s expert who opines on the lack of medical necessity, lack of causal relationship or non existence of a statutory serious injury.
