Key Takeaway
New York court dismisses serious injury claim after successful shoulder surgery restored full range of motion, highlighting how effective medical treatment can defeat no-fault threshold cases.
A successful medical outcome can sometimes work against a plaintiff’s legal case in New York’s no-fault insurance system. Under Insurance Law § 5102(d), injury victims must prove they sustained a “serious injury” to pursue a lawsuit against the at-fault driver. This threshold requirement creates an ironic situation: when medical treatment works too well, it may eliminate the very evidence needed to prove serious injury.
The case of Acosta v Vidal demonstrates this challenging dynamic. The plaintiff underwent shoulder surgery following a motor vehicle accident, but the procedure’s success became the foundation for dismissing the serious injury claim. When physical therapy records and medical examinations show restoration of normal function, courts will often find that no permanent consequential limitation exists.
This scenario differs from cases where plaintiffs’ own medical records work against them due to inconsistent complaints or gaps in treatment. Here, the medical evidence was clear and consistent—perhaps too consistent for the plaintiff’s legal prospects.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Acosta v Vidal, 2014 NY Slip Op 05025 (1st Dept. 2014)
“e failed to address the conflicting findings made by plaintiff’s physical therapist of normal range of motion in all parts one week after the accident (see Thomas v City of New York, 99 AD3d 580 , lv denied 22 NY3d 857 ; Jno-Baptiste v Buckley, 82 AD3d 578 ). The physical therapy records showed that plaintiff’s neck and back continued to have full range of motion at two subsequent appointments, while the left shoulder had limitations attributable to the surgical procedure, which improved within a month. Minor limitations are insufficient to support a serious injury claim (see Rickert v Diaz, 112 AD3d 451 ).
In addition, the surgeon’s report of a post-surgical examination found that plaintiff had a negative impingement sign, indicating the condition had been repaired.”
The surgery was so successful that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent consequential injury injury or a significant limitation of a body system. This is rough.
Key Takeaway
Successful medical treatment can paradoxically harm a serious injury claim under New York’s no-fault law. When surgery effectively restores function and eliminates limitations, courts may find no permanent injury exists, regardless of the initial severity of the condition or the invasiveness of the treatment required.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2014, New York courts have continued to refine the application of Insurance Law § 5102(d)‘s serious injury threshold, particularly regarding how successful medical treatment affects permanent injury determinations. Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations of “permanent consequential limitation” standards and recent appellate decisions addressing the relationship between treatment outcomes and threshold injury requirements.
