Key Takeaway
New York court case highlights critical requirement for physicians to specify objective testing methods when measuring range of motion in no-fault threshold injury claims.
The Importance of Objective Testing in No-Fault Threshold Cases
New York’s no-fault insurance system requires injured parties to meet specific threshold requirements to pursue claims beyond basic economic benefits. Under Insurance Law Section 5102(d), plaintiffs must demonstrate a “serious injury” through objective medical evidence. A recent Second Department decision illustrates a common pitfall that can derail even legitimate injury claims: failing to specify the objective testing methods used in medical examinations.
When physicians conduct range of motion testing to support personal injury claims, the courts demand more than conclusory statements about limitations. The medical evidence must detail the specific objective tests performed, the methodology used, and quantifiable results. This requirement ensures that subjective patient complaints are supported by verifiable, scientific measurements that can withstand legal scrutiny.
The case demonstrates how easily claims can fail when medical professionals provide incomplete documentation, even when genuine injuries exist. Understanding what constitutes objective signs of continuing disability remains crucial for both medical providers and legal practitioners in building successful threshold injury cases.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Fiorucci-Melosevich v Harris, 2018 NY Slip Op 07410 (2d Dept. 2018)
“In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the affirmation of a physician who stated that he measured the range of motion of the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff’s spine at a recent examination and found significant restrictions. The plaintiff’s physician did not specify the objective test he used to measure the plaintiff’s range of motion.”
Always comes down to the objective tests that were performed, the listing and quantification of the same,
Key Takeaway
This case reinforces that medical affirmations must go beyond general statements about limitations or restrictions. Physicians must specifically identify the objective testing methods used, provide quantifiable measurements, and document their findings with scientific precision. Failure to meet these documentation standards can result in summary judgment dismissal, regardless of the severity of the actual injuries sustained.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in November 2018, Insurance Law Section 5102(d) interpretations and related court precedents regarding objective medical evidence requirements may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions and regulatory guidance. Practitioners should verify current case law standards for medical documentation specificity and objective testing methodologies in serious injury threshold determinations.
