Key Takeaway
Court rules on causation in personal injury case where plaintiff had prior accident but fully recovered before sustaining new cervical spine injuries.
Establishing Causation After Prior Injuries: A Critical Victory
When personal injury plaintiffs have a history of previous accidents, proving that current injuries stem from the most recent incident becomes significantly more complex. Insurance companies and defense attorneys often argue that pre-existing conditions or prior trauma are the true cause of a plaintiff’s injuries, attempting to break the chain of causation between the defendant’s negligence and the claimed damages.
The First Department’s decision in Sanchez v Oxcin demonstrates how proper medical evidence and expert testimony can overcome these challenging causation defenses. This case illustrates the importance of contemporaneous medical records and thorough expert opinions in establishing a clear causal link between an accident and subsequent injuries, even when a plaintiff has sustained injuries in previous incidents.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Sanchez v Oxcin, 2018 NY Slip Op 00343 (1st Dept. 2018)
“The orthopedic surgeon also measured contemporaneous and continuing limitations, and opined that the cervical spine injury was caused by the subject accident, specifically noting that plaintiff had recovered from the injuries sustained in the earlier accident before incurring the current serious injuries (see James v Perez, 95 AD3d 788, 789 ; Yuen v Arka Memory Cab Corp., 80 AD3d 481, 482 ). Plaintiff also submitted certified records of all treatment provided by the surgeon who performed the cervical spine surgery and, although not admissible, because unsworn (CPLR 3212), these records are consistent with the sworn expert report (cf. Garcia v Feigelson, 130 AD3d 498 ). Since there is no medical or other evidence in the record indicating that plaintiff had a herniated disc in her cervical spine before the subject accident, nothing further was required of her in opposing the dismissal of her claim of serious injury to that part of her body.”
Key Takeaway
This decision emphasizes that when a plaintiff has fully recovered from prior injuries before sustaining new trauma, proper expert medical testimony establishing causation can successfully defeat summary judgment motions. The court’s analysis shows how causation defenses can be rebuffed when supported by comprehensive medical evidence and expert opinions that clearly distinguish between old and new injuries.
