Was the femur broken in the accident?

A fractured femur is among the most severe injuries one can sustain in a motor vehicle accident, typically requiring immediate medical intervention and rendering walking impossible. However, what happens when a plaintiff claims such a catastrophic injury yet demonstrates the ability to walk freely after the collision? This scenario presents fascinating questions about causation and credibility that can make or break a personal injury case.

The Peterson v Ward decision from New York’s Fourth Department illustrates how seemingly contradictory evidence can create significant factual disputes in threshold injury cases. When medical records and witness testimony don’t align with the claimed severity of injuries, courts must carefully examine whether the alleged injuries actually resulted from the accident in question.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Peterson v Ward, 2017 NY Slip Op 09024 (4th Dept. 2017)

“We conclude, however, that there are material issues of fact whether plaintiff’s alleged injury, i.e., a fractured femur, was caused by the motor vehicle accident and thus that the court properly denied that part of plaintiffs’ motion on the issue of serious injury (see generally Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 , rearg denied 52 NY2d 784 ). Specifically, there is an issue of fact, among others, concerning whether plaintiff would be able to ambulate freely without assistance for a day and a half following the accident if she had sustained a fracture to her femur as a result of the collision.”

Interesting observation by the court and defense counsel.

Key Takeaway

This case demonstrates how post-accident behavior can undermine injury claims. The ability to walk unassisted for over a day after allegedly fracturing a femur creates serious credibility issues. Defense attorneys should carefully investigate what timeline evidence reveals about claimed injuries, as inconsistent medical records can defeat even strong-appearing cases.