Key Takeaway
Sanchez v Oxcin: why the cervical-spine claim survived while other injury claims failed, and how the medical record differed by body part.
This article is part of our ongoing causation coverage, with 52 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.
Sanchez v Oxcin reached different results for different body parts. The cervical-spine claim survived; the same plaintiff’s other injury claims did not.
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.
Why the neck claim was different
In Sanchez v Oxcin, 157 AD3d 561 (1st Dept 2018), decided January 18, 2018, the First Department restored the cervical-spine serious-injury claim and granted the plaintiff judgment on liability. Dismissal otherwise remained in place, including the lumbar-spine, right-shoulder, right-knee and former 90/180 claims.
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 defense relied on prior accidents and medical records describing degeneration. But the cervical MRI underlying its expert’s opinion did not report degenerative findings. The plaintiff’s physiatrist documented restrictions shortly after the crash; her surgeon measured continuing restrictions and explained that she had recovered from the earlier injuries before the new accident.
The response did not adequately address the degeneration evidence concerning the other body parts. The court’s favorable cervical ruling cannot be applied to those rejected claims.
Sworn proof and consistent records
The opinion described the surgeon’s certified but unsworn treatment records as inadmissible, while noting their consistency with the sworn expert report. It did not announce that certification alone cures every evidentiary problem.
Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208 (2011) distinguishes proof of severity from proof connecting an injury to the accident. That distinction helps explain the body-part-specific result under CPLR 3212(b).
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Vargas: before-and-after knee MRIs and a triable causal issue
- Russell: unchanged prior findings and unsupported aggravation
- Lee: missing admissible early treatment evidence
- Campbell: unanswered shoulder findings and treatment cessation
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 2,600 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.
52 published articles in Causation
Keep Reading
More Causation Analysis
Defense Engineer Says Your Injury Is Degenerative? Bonilla-Acosta v Max Services (2026)
A NY appeals court held a defense engineer was qualified on crash force but not shown qualified to call spine injuries degenerative. What it means for you.
Oct 23, 2026
Collateral Estoppel?
Explore collateral estoppel: why default judgments don't preclude later suits & when courts can depart from other departments' rulings.
Sep 28, 2020
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 Causal Relationship in New York Personal Injury Cases: Legal Guide
Mnatcakanova v Elliot: why an accident-related medical conclusion did not answer spine and knee degeneration, plus the separate scar ruling.
Jul 24, 2019
When Medical Records Contradict Testimony: Causation and Jury Verdicts in New York Personal Injury Cases
Fourth Department upholds jury verdict rejecting causation where plaintiff's medical records contradicted her testimony about prior injuries.
Mar 17, 2018
Contemporaneous medical records sufficient
Court ruling demonstrates how contemporaneous medical records can establish causation between accidents and injuries, with implications for no-fault insurance claims.
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.
