Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 89 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.
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)
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.
(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.
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
NY Serious Injury Threshold: When Suboptimal Effort Derails Personal Injury Cases
Learn how NY's serious injury threshold works and why suboptimal effort can destroy your personal injury case. Expert Long Island attorney guidance.
Nov 25, 2019
They call her crash
Court analysis of four accidents determining which qualify for serious injury under 5102(d), examining significant limitation vs permanent consequential categories.
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, 2019
Oh somebody had a bad day.
Court case highlights attorney malpractice risks in SUM claims when settling without insurer consent, emphasizing professional duty requirements.
Dec 17, 2017
Permanent consequential v. Significant limitaton – the value of early surgery
Analysis of Sutliff v Qadar case examining permanent consequential vs significant limitation standards under 5102(d), highlighting the importance of early.
Nov 14, 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.
