Key Takeaway
Court ruling shows how inconsistent testimony and medical records can undermine causation in personal injury cases, allowing jury to determine if accident caused injuries.
In personal injury litigation, establishing causation between an accident and claimed injuries is fundamental to a successful case. However, when a plaintiff’s testimony conflicts with their own medical records, it can severely undermine their claim. This creates opportunities for defense attorneys to challenge whether the accident was truly the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
The Cooper v Nestoros case from New York’s Fourth Department demonstrates how courts handle situations where a plaintiff’s credibility comes into question due to contradictory evidence. When medical records tell a different story than the plaintiff’s testimony, juries must weigh this conflicting information to determine causation.
This scenario highlights why contemporaneous medical records are so crucial in personal injury cases, and why defense attorneys often focus heavily on pre-existing conditions when building their causation defense strategies.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Cooper v Nestoros, 2018 NY Slip Op 01716 (4th Dept. 2018)
“Plaintiff’s chiropractor testified that, based on that history, he did not believe that plaintiff had suffered a neck injury before the date of the accident, and he further testified that he would have to reevaluate his conclusion if he had been given inaccurate information. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon testified that he initially believed that plaintiff’s shoulder pain was caused by an injury to her neck but ultimately concluded that it was caused by an injury to her shoulder. Although plaintiff maintained on direct examination that she did not suffer a neck injury prior to the date of the accident, that testimony was directly contradicted by her medical records, which indicated that she had complained of chronic neck pain five months before the accident. Thus, we conclude that there is a rational process by which the jury could have found that the accident was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries “
Key Takeaway
When a plaintiff’s testimony directly contradicts their medical records about pre-existing conditions, it creates credibility issues that can be fatal to causation. In Cooper, the plaintiff denied prior neck injuries, but records showed chronic neck pain complaints months before the accident, giving the jury sufficient grounds to find the accident was not a substantial factor in causing the claimed injuries.
