SUM jury verdict sustained

SUM Jury Verdict Sustained: When Medical Testimony Conflicts

In personal injury cases involving serious injury threshold claims under New York’s No-Fault Law, the battle often comes down to competing medical opinions. The recent decision in Pyong Sun Yun v GEICO Ins. Co. illustrates how juries weigh conflicting expert testimony when determining whether an injury meets the statutory threshold for a lawsuit.

This case involved a plaintiff who underwent arthroscopic shoulder surgery following a motor vehicle accident, yet still faced an uphill battle in proving his injury was legally “serious” under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The outcome demonstrates that even when plaintiffs present compelling medical evidence, the strength of contemporaneous medical records and objective findings can make or break a case.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Pyong Sun Yun v GEICO Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 08214 (2d Dept. 2016)

(1) “At the trial, the plaintiff presented the testimony of his treating orthopedic surgeon, who testified that he performed arthroscopic surgery on the plaintiff’s left shoulder less than three months after the accident. The plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon further testified that he examined the plaintiff’s shoulder again in January 2013. He found that for elevation and abduction, the plaintiff’s shoulder had a range of motion limitation that was “minimal but perceptible,” and for internal rotation, the shoulder’s range of motion was “almost to normal, but not quite.” The defendant presented the testimony of an orthopedic surgeon who examined the plaintiff’s left shoulder in April of 2012, and found that its range of motion was “within normal limits.”

(2) “Here, the jury’s finding that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to his left shoulder under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102(d) was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence submitted at trial.”

He said she said. The gecko won.

Key Takeaway

Even surgical intervention doesn’t guarantee a successful serious injury claim. When medical experts provide conflicting testimony about range of motion limitations, juries may side with defense experts who find “normal limits.” This case underscores why objective signs of continuing disability documented consistently over time are crucial for plaintiff success.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 post, New York’s serious injury threshold standards under Insurance Law § 5102(d) may have evolved through subsequent court decisions and regulatory interpretations. Practitioners should verify current case law developments regarding medical testimony standards, contemporaneous documentation requirements, and jury instruction practices when evaluating SUM claims and serious injury determinations.