The cited to report raised an issue of fact

Defendants’ Expert Report Creates Fact Issues in Serious Injury Case

In New York no-fault insurance cases, defendants often retain medical experts to challenge whether a plaintiff sustained serious injuries that meet the statutory threshold. However, when these expert reports rely on the plaintiff’s own medical records that document accident-related injuries, defendants may inadvertently create fact issues rather than resolve them.

The Fourth Department’s decision in James v Thomas demonstrates how defendants can undermine their own summary judgment motion when their expert’s conclusions conflict with the underlying medical evidence they cite. This situation is reminiscent of cases where defendants essentially defeat their own arguments by presenting contradictory evidence.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

James v Thomas, 2017 NY Slip Op 09025 (4th Dept. 2017)

“Although defendants’ expert ultimately opined in his report that plaintiff’s injuries were not causally related to the accident, that report relies on plaintiff’s medical records, which conclude that plaintiff sustained injuries that were causally related to the collision. The report also noted the quantitative assessments of plaintiff’s physicians with respect to her limited range of motion in her cervical and lumbar spine after the accident. Thus, defendants failed to eliminate all issues of fact with respect to whether plaintiff sustained serious injuries that were causally related to the accident under those two categories”

Key Takeaway

When defendants’ medical experts rely on plaintiff’s medical records that document accident-related injuries and objective signs of continuing disability like limited range of motion, they create fact issues that prevent summary judgment dismissal. Courts will not grant summary judgment when the expert’s opinion conflicts with the underlying medical evidence cited in their own report.