Key Takeaway
Court dismisses personal injury case when chiropractor's findings contradicted MRI results showing normal spine images with no disc damage.
In New York personal injury litigation, plaintiffs must satisfy specific thresholds to recover damages beyond basic economic losses. Under Insurance Law § 5102(d), plaintiffs must demonstrate they suffered a “serious injury” as defined by statute. This threshold requirement serves as a crucial gatekeeping mechanism, preventing minor injury claims from proceeding to trial.
One of the most challenging aspects of meeting the serious injury threshold involves presenting consistent, objective medical evidence. When a plaintiff’s medical providers reach conflicting conclusions about the same injury, it creates significant problems for the case. This is particularly true when treating physicians’ findings are inconsistent with diagnostic imaging results.
The intersection between no-fault threshold issues under § 5102(d) and traditional personal injury claims under § 5106 creates complex litigation dynamics. Medical inconsistencies can be fatal to a plaintiff’s case, as demonstrated in situations where a plaintiff’s own hospital records defeated his threshold motion.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Komina v Gil, 2013 NY Slip Op 04744 (1st Dept. 2013)
“Furthermore, plaintiff’s chiropractor made no attempt to explain the conflicting findings of the tests he performed during plaintiff’s physical examination and the MRI reports of plaintiff’s radiologist, which found normal lumbar and cervical spine images with no evidence of disc bulging or herniation, and defendants are thus entitled to summary judgment on this basis”
Do not kid yourself – there is cross over between 5102(d) and 5106 litigation.
Key Takeaway
Medical consistency is paramount in personal injury cases. When treating physicians cannot explain why their clinical findings contradict objective diagnostic tests like MRI results, courts will often grant summary judgment for defendants. This case illustrates how objective signs of continuing disability must align with imaging studies to survive legal challenges.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2013, New York’s serious injury threshold standards under Insurance Law § 5102(d) may have been refined through subsequent appellate decisions and regulatory updates. Practitioners should verify current judicial interpretations of medical evidence consistency requirements and threshold motion standards, as courts have continued to develop precedent regarding the admissibility and weight of conflicting medical reports in serious injury determinations.
