Key Takeaway
Bobbio v Amboy Bus: an unsupported aggravation opinion failed to explain prior cervical disability; a prior injury alone does not decide causation.
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 129 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.
Bobbio v Amboy Bus turned on an orthopedist’s missing explanation: what supported his opinion that this accident worsened an already disabling neck condition?
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Legal Update (September 2026): Laws of 2026, chapter 58, Part EE sections 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day serious-injury category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026; the older ruling below applied the earlier statute.
The missing comparison
In Bobbio v Amboy Bus Co. Inc., 143 AD3d 655 (1st Dept 2016), decided October 27, 2016, the First Department affirmed dismissal. The defense relied on medical examinations and the plaintiff’s testimony about a neck-related disability that predated the accident by more than six years.
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.
Her orthopedist acknowledged an earlier MRI but supplied no objective basis, beyond her reported history, for attributing an exacerbation to this accident. The court found no factual issue as to causation or aggravation.
Bobbio examined aggravation and found the proof lacking. An entirely new diagnosis was not the only possible theory. Compare Goodwin and Grant, linked below, where different medical records supported a factual dispute.
A useful expert explanation identifies the pre-accident condition, the claimed change and the medical basis for attributing that change to the accident. Listing a prior diagnosis is not the same as explaining it. Nor does the mere existence of a prior disability decide every later claim.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s original 2016 comment follows. Read it alongside the court’s express treatment of aggravation: the failure was in the supporting medical explanation, not a rule requiring an entirely new diagnosis.
On causation (and we are assuming the only issue is cervical injury), a prima facie showing was satisfied through a disability caused because of a neck injury. The failure to adduce that the injuries were different as a result of the new injury was fatal to plaintiff’s case.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Goodwin: prior asymptomatic condition and measured restrictions
- Grant: competing MRI-based causal explanations
- Valentin: unanswered degeneration in the medical records
- Latus and Vila: explanations for stopping treatment
For review of a particular injury or no-fault dispute, contact the office.
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
Collateral Estoppel?
Explore collateral estoppel: why default judgments don't preclude later suits & when courts can depart from other departments' rulings.
Sep 28, 2020
5102(d) and a dissent discussing "no-fault"
Court ruling on 5102(d) serious injury claims requiring proof of no-fault exhaustion and inability to pay medical bills, with dissenting opinion analysis.
Apr 16, 2012
Causation – Be aware of seeking a trial de novo after a master arbitrator affirms an award
Learn how to prove causation in NY no-fault insurance claims. Expert analysis of State Farm v Stack case for Long Island and NYC accident victims.
Oct 11, 2008
When Medical Records Contradict Testimony: Causation and Jury Verdicts in New York Personal Injury Cases
Fourth Department upholds jury verdict rejecting causation where plaintiff's medical records contradicted her testimony about prior injuries.
Mar 17, 2018
A good causation case
Jones v MTA Bus Co. dismissed injury claims on its medical record. The 2014 First Department ruling did not create a universal five-month rule.
Dec 25, 2014Was 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.
