The marathon runner

In New York’s no-fault insurance system, injured parties must meet specific statutory thresholds to pursue claims beyond basic economic benefits. One critical threshold involves proving “significant limitation of use” or “permanent consequential limitation” of a body function or system. The challenge lies in demonstrating these limitations when a plaintiff’s post-accident activities suggest otherwise.

A recent First Department case illustrates how a plaintiff’s own actions can undermine their injury claims. When someone returns to demanding physical activities like marathon running after an accident, it raises serious questions about the severity and permanence of their alleged injuries. This case demonstrates the importance of understanding how New York No-Fault Insurance Law evaluates injury claims and the evidence that can make or break a case.

Case Background

In Heywood v New York City Transit Authority, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff claimed significant and permanent limitations to her ankles and knees that allegedly met the serious injury threshold required under New York Insurance Law Section 5102(d). The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury.

During discovery, the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony revealed critical facts about her physical activities following the accident. She admitted resuming running within months after the incident and completing a full marathon several years later. The defendant presented this testimony as evidence that the plaintiff did not suffer significant or permanent limitations to her lower extremities.

The First Department reviewed the summary judgment record to determine whether the plaintiff established a triable issue of fact regarding the serious injury threshold.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Heywood v New York City Tr. Auth, 2018 NY Slip Op 06318 (1st Dept. 2018)

“Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony showed that she had resumed running within months after the accident and completed a marathon years later, indicating an absence of any significant or permanent injury to her ankles or knees ”

(1) the running after the accident knocked out the “signification limitation”; and

(2) the marathon years later knocked out the “permanent consequential” injury

The Court later said that the full range of motion knocked out the case. This case goes to show how ADL’s (even if there was diminished ROM) could cause a staturoty threshold case to sail away into the sunset.

Key Takeaway

This case underscores a fundamental principle in no-fault litigation: a plaintiff’s activities of daily living (ADLs) can be determinative in threshold cases. Even when medical evidence shows some range of motion limitations, completing physically demanding activities like marathons can fatally undermine claims of significant or permanent injury limitations.

Legal Significance

The Heywood decision reinforces the temporal distinction between “significant limitation” and “permanent consequential” injury categories under New York’s serious injury threshold. The First Department’s analysis demonstrates that courts apply different evidentiary standards to activities occurring at different post-accident intervals. Activities shortly after an accident negate claims of significant limitation, while activities years later defeat assertions of permanent injury.

This temporal framework creates strategic implications for both plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs must maintain consistency between their claimed limitations and their actual physical activities throughout the entire litigation period. A single marathon completed years after an accident can undo years of medical treatment records and expert testimony. Defendants benefit from comprehensive discovery into plaintiffs’ social media accounts, fitness activities, and recreational pursuits across the full post-accident timeline.

The decision also highlights how courts prioritize objective evidence of physical capability over subjective complaints or even clinical findings. Full range of motion testing and documented participation in demanding physical activities outweigh plaintiff testimony about pain or difficulty with daily tasks.

Practical Implications

Defense counsel should conduct thorough discovery into plaintiffs’ post-accident physical activities, including social media investigations, surveillance footage, and detailed deposition questioning about exercise routines and recreational pursuits. Questions should target specific timeframes to establish both short-term activity levels that negate significant limitation claims and long-term activities that defeat permanency assertions.

Plaintiff attorneys must carefully counsel clients about the litigation consequences of resuming physically demanding activities. Even if clients feel capable of running or exercising, such activities can destroy otherwise viable serious injury claims. Plaintiffs should understand that participating in marathons, competitive sports, or intensive fitness regimens creates powerful defense evidence that courts consistently find dispositive at summary judgment.

Related Articles

• New York No-Fault Insurance Law
• Understanding the CPLR 3212(g) paradigm for summary judgment motions
• Critical timing rules for summary judgment motions under CPLR 3212(a)
• Understanding IME no-shows and their consequences in no-fault cases
• No-fault verification requirements and compliance standards