Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 90 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.
The credibility of medical experts can make or break a case in both personal injury litigation and no-fault insurance disputes. When a physician’s professional conduct comes under scrutiny, it creates ripple effects throughout the legal system that attorneys must carefully navigate. The medical community’s reputation for integrity is particularly crucial in New York’s complex no-fault insurance framework, where physicians regularly serve as expert witnesses and treating doctors whose opinions can determine case outcomes.
Recent events involving a prominent orthopedic surgeon highlight how quickly a medical professional’s standing can shift from respected expert to liability. This situation demonstrates the importance of thoroughly vetting medical experts and understanding how their conduct outside the courtroom can impact legal proceedings. Just as we’ve seen in other cases where medical records have worked against plaintiffs, the credibility of medical professionals remains a cornerstone of successful litigation strategy.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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.
First, happy Labor Day here. Second, this article was too good not to post, although it is the type of red meat I save for my Facebook feed. It is relevant too all practitioners, whether you retain him as your expert in a PI case or oppose him, represent him or oppose him on his no-fault collections, or have a pulse and want to know what is going on here.
Assuming that Dr. Berkowitz and his entities places his receivables into arbitration, this will never come out except as an “oh by the way”. On his Plaintiff no-fault cases, it would make decent cross-examination fodder. On a personal injury case, I would be looking for a new expert. Whether the claim involves serious injury under §5102(d) or a no-fault collection matter, a compromised expert creates risk at every stage. For a reference on expert credibility in New York litigation, see the legal encyclopedia.
Key Takeaway
When medical experts face professional scandals, attorneys must quickly assess the impact on pending cases. While arbitration proceedings may limit public exposure of such issues, the damage to credibility can be significant in jury trials where expert testimony is crucial. Smart practitioners will distance themselves from compromised experts and seek alternatives to protect their clients’ interests.
Related Articles
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 2,600 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.
About This Topic
Serious Injury Threshold Under Insurance Law 5102(d)
New York Insurance Law 5102(d) defines the categories of serious injury that a plaintiff must prove to recover non-economic damages in a motor vehicle accident case. The statute lists specific categories — significant disfigurement, fracture, loss of a fetus, permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation of use, and the 90/180-day rule. Courts apply these categories strictly, and the sufficiency of medical evidence supporting a serious injury claim is one of the most frequently litigated issues in New York personal injury law.
90 published articles in 5102(d) issues
Keep Reading
More 5102(d) issues Analysis
Defense Engineer Says Your Injury Is Degenerative? Bonilla-Acosta v Max Services (2026)
A NY appeals court held a defense engineer was qualified on crash force but not shown qualified to call spine injuries degenerative. What it means for you.
Oct 23, 2026
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
The $200,000 bulge
Defense attorney's nightmare: $200,000 jury verdict for bulge disc under NY no-fault law's significant limitation and permanent consequential limitation prongs.
Sep 21, 2017![Peer report is sufficient to prima facie prove lack of serious injury (Ins Law Sec. 5102[d])](https://cdn.jtnylaw.com/blog/peer-report-is-sufficient-to-prima-facie-prove-lack-of-serious-injury-ins-law-sec-5102d.avif)
Peer report is sufficient to prima facie prove lack of serious injury (Ins Law Sec. 5102[d])
Fourth Department ruling confirms peer review expert reports can establish prima facie defense against serious injury claims under NY Insurance Law Section 5102(d).
Feb 8, 2014
What are objective signs of continuing disability?
Court case examines objective medical tests for proving continuing disability in personal injury cases, including EMG tests, straight leg tests, and muscle spasm documentation.
Mar 21, 2012
The need for contemporaneous records
Second Department clarifies that contemporaneous medical examinations aren't required to defeat summary judgment motions under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Apr 10, 2019Was 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.
