Key Takeaway
Court ruling shows how lack of causation in knee injury claims can bar recovery even when serious injury threshold is met for other injuries.
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.
Hojun Hwang v Doe, 2016 NY Slip Op 07610 (1st Dept. 2016)
(1) “Defendant made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to his right knee, by submitting the report of their orthopedic surgeon who found full range of motion, and opined, upon review of intraoperative photographs, that plaintiff’s knee surgery was not causally related to the accident (see Hernandez v Cespedes, 141 AD3d 483 ; Acosta v Zulu Servs., Inc., 129 AD3d 640 ).
(2) “Plaintiff’s failure to raise an issue of fact as to whether his right knee condition was causally related to the accident means that he cannot recover for any right knee injury, regardless of whether he meets the serious injury threshold with respect to his cervical and lumbar spine claims (see Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548, 549 ).”
This is an example of the causation defense at its worst. Plaintiff in his BP/Supp BP appears to have pleaded neck, back and right knee with surgery. The value of the case would rest with the right knee injury. The court in the SJ motion dismissed threshold on the right knee injury based upon lack of causation. The neck and back remain. The net effect because the Court found lack of causation (as opposed to lack of serious injury) is that the knee injury cannot be considered at all if the neck and back surpass threshold. The decision makes sense.
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.
The causation piece fits within the more contemporary manner of trying an extremity of surgery where hevay reliance is placed on the operative photos and mininal reliance is palced on the MRI filns.
Legal Significance
The First Department’s two-part analysis establishes critical principles about causation and serious injury. First, the court held that defendant met its prima facie burden by submitting an expert report finding full range of motion (suggesting no serious injury) and opining that the knee surgery was not causally related to the accident. The expert’s review of intraoperative photographs provided a sound basis for the causation opinion, demonstrating that modern defense strategies increasingly rely on surgical records and operative photographs rather than solely on MRI films or physical examination findings.
Second, and more significantly, the court held that plaintiff’s failure to raise a triable issue on causation meant “he cannot recover for any right knee injury, regardless of whether he meets the serious injury threshold with respect to his cervical and lumbar spine claims.” This holding follows Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp. and establishes that causation and threshold are independent requirements—satisfying one does not excuse failure to satisfy the other.
Jason Tenenbaum’s observation about the practical impact is particularly astute: “The value of the case would rest with the right knee injury.” Knee surgeries typically drive settlement values in personal injury cases far more than cervical and lumbar disc herniations without surgery. By eliminating the knee injury from the case based on lack of causation, the defendant effectively gutted the case’s settlement value, even though the plaintiff may still proceed to trial on the neck and back claims.
The decision also illustrates the evolution of causation defense strategies. As Jason notes, “The causation piece fits within the more contemporary manner of trying an extremity of surgery where heavy reliance is placed on the operative photos and minimal reliance is placed on the MRI films.” Defense experts increasingly argue that operative findings showing minimal pathology indicate that any injuries seen on MRI were degenerative or pre-existing rather than traumatic. By reviewing intraoperative photographs, defense experts can point to specific surgical findings and argue that the absence of traumatic pathology negates causation.
Practical Implications
For plaintiffs’ attorneys, this decision underscores the critical importance of establishing causation for each claimed injury, particularly high-value surgical claims. It is not sufficient to prove that surgery occurred; plaintiffs must present expert testimony establishing that the surgical findings were consistent with traumatic injury rather than degenerative changes. This may require retaining experts who can review operative notes and photographs and explain how the surgical findings demonstrate acute trauma.
For defense counsel, the decision validates the strategy of attacking causation through review of surgical records and intraoperative photographs. When operative findings appear minimal or inconsistent with traumatic injury, defense experts can use those findings to argue that the surgery addressed pre-existing degenerative conditions unrelated to the accident.
The decision also demonstrates how failure on one injury can disproportionately impact case value. Even when plaintiffs may survive summary judgment on some injuries, losing their most valuable injury claim can make settlement or trial economically unviable. Defense attorneys should recognize this leverage opportunity and consider causation challenges even when threshold challenges alone might not succeed.
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 2,353 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
Police Accident Reports and CPLR 4518(a): When They Come Into Evidence — and When They Get Redacted
Shehab v Powers explains when a police accident report is admissible under CPLR 4518(a) — officer observations come in, witness statements get redacted.
May 11, 2017
Defense expert states that injury aggravated pre-existing condition – yet jury verdict dismissing claim affirmed
NY court affirms jury verdict dismissing personal injury claim despite defense expert testimony that accident aggravated plaintiff's pre-existing back condition.
Jun 20, 2013
A Plaintiff's own hospital records defeated his own threshold summary judgment motion
Court examines how plaintiff's own hospital records contradicted expert testimony in no-fault threshold case, creating triable issues of fact.
Jun 5, 2010
Mr. Ortega, why did you lie to us?
Ortega v Healthcare Services Group case analysis - plaintiff's incomplete disclosure of health history leads to jury verdict favoring defendant on causation and damages.
Nov 15, 2018Was 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.
