Key Takeaway
Court ruling demonstrates that expert testimony on range of motion limitations and orthopedic tests can establish serious injury threshold under NY Insurance Law 5102(d).
When litigating serious injury claims under New York’s no-fault insurance law, establishing the threshold requirements can be challenging, particularly when facing well-funded defendants. The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) often aggressively defends even modest policy limits cases, making thorough medical documentation crucial for plaintiffs.
The Cooper v. MVAIC decision provides important guidance on what types of medical evidence can satisfy the “permanent consequential limitation of use” category under Insurance Law Section 5102(d). This case is particularly significant because it involves MVAIC, which serves as the insurer of last resort for uninsured motorist claims and frequently contests serious injury determinations, even in cases with relatively low policy limits.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Cooper v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 51707(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiff’s expert witness testified about plaintiff’s limitation of her ranges of motion and compared his findings to normal ranges of motion. Moreover, the expert witness offered testimony with respect to the tests he had performed to arrive at his conclusion that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 ; Scudera v Mahbubur, 299 AD2d 535 ). Although defendant’s medical experts offered a different opinion, the resolution of conflicting medical opinions is within the province of the jury (see Mendoza v Kaplowitz, 215 AD2d 735 ).”
Range of motion and orthopedic tests are sufficient to establish threshold. Leave it to MVAIC to make plaintiff’s life on a 25k policy case miserable.
Key Takeaway
The Cooper decision confirms that expert medical testimony documenting range of motion limitations and orthopedic test results can establish serious injury under the “permanent consequential limitation of use” category. When medical experts disagree, juries have the authority to weigh conflicting opinions and determine which is more credible.
Related Articles
- Understanding collateral estoppel in New York no-fault insurance cases
- Medical causation and expert opinions in NY personal injury cases
- New York no-fault causation requirements and trial de novo procedures
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 post, New York’s serious injury threshold requirements under Insurance Law § 5102(d) may have been subject to regulatory amendments, updated medical documentation standards, or evolving case law interpretations. Additionally, MVAIC procedures and defense strategies may have changed through regulatory updates or administrative modifications. Practitioners should verify current threshold requirements and evidentiary standards when pursuing serious injury claims.
