Key Takeaway
Campbell v Drammeh: unanswered degenerative findings, separate spine and shoulder proof, and an unexplained cessation of treatment.
This article is part of our ongoing causation coverage, with 51 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.
Campbell v Drammeh involved more than the word ‘degeneration’ in an MRI report. The court identified separate gaps in the spinal and shoulder proof, as well as an unexplained end to treatment.
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.
Different deficiencies in the same record
In Campbell v Drammeh, 161 AD3d 584 (1st Dept 2018), decided May 22, 2018, the First Department affirmed dismissal. The defense supported its motion with radiology opinions attributing the claimed conditions to degeneration and the plaintiff’s own records.
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.
For the spine, the plaintiff supplied neither a causal opinion answering degeneration nor evidence of treatment. For the shoulder, his surgeon had attributed the injury to the accident but did not explain the MRI’s hypertrophic findings or his own operative finding of bursitis. The plaintiff also offered no explanation for stopping treatment after surgery.
The missing causal explanation and unexplained cessation mattered together. Surgery alone did not answer the defense evidence.
A treatment gap is a question to answer
Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566 (2005) requires a reasonable explanation for a relevant cessation of treatment; it does not require needless care just to preserve a lawsuit.
Here, the record supplied no explanation. In reviewing a CPLR 3212(b) motion, distinguish a missing explanation from an actual medical reason for stopping, and distinguish an imaging label from an expert’s supported opinion about what caused the condition.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
See the pre-existing injury and causation encyclopedia hub for the topic’s case directory and statutory update.
- Russell: unchanged prior findings and unsupported aggravation
- Sanchez: different causation results for different body parts
- Lee: missing admissible early treatment evidence
- Shur: a contradictory IME report and two unsuccessful motions
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 2,353 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.
51 published articles in Causation
Keep Reading
More Causation Analysis
Collateral Estoppel?
Explore collateral estoppel: why default judgments don't preclude later suits & when courts can depart from other departments' rulings.
Sep 28, 2020
New York Personal Injury Law: Proving Causation in Accident Cases
Learn how to prove causation in NY personal injury cases. Expert analysis of Parisien v Allstate case and causation challenges. Call 516-750-0595.
Aug 10, 2019
Another arbitration only rule bites the dust
Global Liberty v Medco Tech: Jason’s 2019 appeal on post-surgical equipment causation, the peer-review record and why the court ordered a new hearing.
Mar 23, 2019
Lack of causation not established on a peer review
Shur v Unitrin: a contradictory IME report defeated the insurer's motion, but the provider's cross-motion also failed. No automatic payment award.
Aug 17, 2017
Permanent consequential v. Significant limitaton – the value of early surgery
Analysis of Sutliff v Qadar case examining permanent consequential vs significant limitation standards under 5102(d), highlighting the importance of early.
Nov 14, 2014
Broke the chain of causation
New York appellate court ruling demonstrates how a patient's failure to follow medical instructions can break the chain of causation in malpractice cases.
May 1, 2010Was 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.
