Key Takeaway
Lee v Rodriguez: missing admissible early treatment evidence, later examinations, and Perl's distinction between causation and motion measurements.
This article is part of our ongoing causation coverage, with 51 published articles analyzing causation 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.
Lee v Rodriguez was not simply a case about waiting too long to see a doctor. The plaintiffs lacked admissible early treatment records to support their claimed causal connection.
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 ruling below applied the earlier statute.
What was missing from the opposition
In Lee v Rodriguez, 150 AD3d 481 (1st Dept 2017), decided May 11, 2017, the First Department affirmed dismissal. Defense specialists found normal motion on recent examinations. The defense also showed that the plaintiffs had not reported injury to police immediately or sought medical treatment shortly after the accident.
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 plaintiffs’ only admissible submissions were reports from an examination some three years later. That doctor recited another doctor’s supposed early findings and referred to MRI reports absent from the record. The court treated those passages as hearsay and found no records, charts or bills supporting the claimed early treatment.
Lee sets no fixed deadline for seeking treatment. Its result depended on the evidence actually submitted.
Early observation versus early measurement
Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208 (2011) rejected a requirement for contemporaneous numerical motion measurements. It also explained the importance of early medical observations to causation.
Lee cited Perl; it did not overrule it. The distinction is between delayed numerical measurement and a record that fails to support the claimed early treatment at all. Under CPLR 3212(b), counsel must address both the medical reasoning and the admissibility of the evidence offered to support it. The decision is not a reason to seek medically unnecessary care for litigation.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s original 2017 reaction follows. Lee’s holding should be read with its evidentiary record and Perl’s distinction explained above.
I cannot say much more.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Sanchez: different causation results for different body parts
- Campbell: unanswered shoulder findings and treatment cessation
- Vargas: before-and-after knee MRIs and a triable causal issue
- McDonald: speculative causal proof after a jury verdict
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.
About This Topic
Causation in New York Personal Injury & No-Fault Law
Causation — proving that the defendant's negligence or the accident caused the plaintiff's injuries — is an essential element of every personal injury and no-fault claim. New York courts distinguish between proximate cause, intervening causes, and pre-existing conditions that may have been aggravated by an accident. The legal standards for establishing causation through medical evidence and the defenses available to challenge causal connection are analyzed in depth across these articles.
51 published articles in Causation
Keep Reading
More Causation Analysis
Collateral Estoppel?
Explore collateral estoppel: why default judgments don't preclude later suits & when courts can depart from other departments' rulings.
Sep 28, 2020
New York Personal Injury Law: Proving Causation in Accident Cases
Learn how to prove causation in NY personal injury cases. Expert analysis of Parisien v Allstate case and causation challenges. Call 516-750-0595.
Aug 10, 2019
Guidance on how to defeat a lack of causation motion regarding injury to a knee
Malloy reinstated a right-knee injury claim based on supported medical opinions. Read the 2010 causation ruling and its limits for no-fault practice.
Dec 22, 2010
Understanding Medical Causation in New York Personal Injury Cases: Expert Analysis Requirements
Black v Gordon: why an unexplained aggravation opinion failed to answer disc degeneration, bony growth and missing early cervical complaints.
Jun 2, 2019
Cessation of treatment/Pre-existing injuries/Commentary
Latus and Vila: treatment gaps, contradictory explanations and pre-existing conditions, with Jason's historical commentary kept separate.
Mar 7, 2018
Triable issue of causation established
Vargas v Marte: the First Department's knee-causation ruling, the before-and-after MRI comparison, and limits of the surviving claim.
Dec 11, 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 causation 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.
