Key Takeaway
New York court clarifies that orthopedic surgeons can measure range of motion without instruments for no-fault insurance threshold determinations.
Range of motion testing plays a crucial role in New York’s no-fault insurance system, particularly when determining whether an injury meets the “serious injury” threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d). This threshold determines whether an injured party can step outside the no-fault system to pursue a lawsuit against the at-fault driver. One common question that arises is whether medical professionals must use specialized instruments when measuring a patient’s range of motion, or if visual observation and manual testing are sufficient.
The First Department’s decision in Frias v Son Tien Liu provides important clarity on this procedural issue, establishing that objective medical evidence can be sufficient even without sophisticated measuring devices. This ruling has significant implications for both defendants seeking summary judgment and plaintiffs trying to establish their threshold claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Frias v Son Tien Liu, 2013 NY Slip Op 04736 (1st Dept. 2013)
From the world of 5102(d) land:
Defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the affirmed reports of an orthopedic surgeon who examined the alleged injured body parts, listed the tests he performed and recorded range of motion measurements, expressed in numerical degrees and the corresponding normal values, and found no limitations (see Singer v Gae Limo Corp., 91 AD3d 526, 527 ). The surgeon’s examination was sufficient, even though he did not use an instrument to measure the ranges of motion.
Key Takeaway
The court’s ruling establishes that orthopedic surgeons can provide valid range of motion measurements through visual observation and manual examination, without requiring specialized instruments like goniometers. This decision reinforces that the quality and thoroughness of the medical examination matter more than the specific tools used, provided the doctor can document numerical measurements and compare them to normal values for threshold determinations.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York courts have continued to develop the jurisprudence around range of motion testing requirements and objective medical evidence standards under Insurance Law § 5102(d). Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations regarding acceptable measurement methodologies, as appellate decisions may have further refined or clarified the standards for what constitutes sufficient objective medical evidence in serious injury threshold determinations.
