Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 89 published articles analyzing 5102(d) issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
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:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
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.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More 5102(d) issues Analysis
Significant limitation v. permanent consequential, again
New York court ruling creates apparent contradiction in no-fault threshold requirements for significant limitation vs. permanent consequential limitation cases.
May 22, 2021
NY Serious Injury Threshold: When Suboptimal Effort Derails Personal Injury Cases
Learn how NY's serious injury threshold works and why suboptimal effort can destroy your personal injury case. Expert Long Island attorney guidance.
Nov 25, 2019
Second Department once again now recognizes a gap in treatment as a basis to non-suit Plaintiffs
Second Department follows First Department precedent, making gaps in medical treatment a viable defense against personal injury threshold claims again.
Jul 25, 2018
5102(d) baseline under an aggravation and exacervbation
How defendants can defeat 5102(d) serious injury threshold claims under aggravation and exacerbation theories - Boroszko v Zylinski case analysis
Jun 21, 2016
Deterioration in the 5102(d) setting must be explained
In NY no-fault cases, medical experts must explain any deterioration after improvement to meet the serious injury threshold under Insurance Law 5102(d).
Jun 20, 2013
The destruction of peer hearsay: It is not hearsay – and much more
Examining peer hearsay exceptions in NY no-fault cases, medical record admissibility, and verification procedures in Urban Radiology v Tri-State Consumer.
Jun 10, 2010Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a 5102(d) issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
