Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing 5102(d) issues coverage, with 89 published articles analyzing 5102(d) issues 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.
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:
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.
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.
Related Articles
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.
Keep Reading
More 5102(d) issues Analysis
Significant limitation v. permanent consequential, again
New York court ruling creates apparent contradiction in no-fault threshold requirements for significant limitation vs. permanent consequential limitation cases.
May 22, 2021
NY Serious Injury Threshold: When Suboptimal Effort Derails Personal Injury Cases
Learn how NY's serious injury threshold works and why suboptimal effort can destroy your personal injury case. Expert Long Island attorney guidance.
Nov 25, 2019
Serious Injury Threshold and Medical Necessity: Unchallenged Surgery Defeats Defense in New York
Landmark NY case analysis: How medical necessity affects serious injury thresholds in personal injury cases. Expert legal representation in Long Island & NYC.
Mar 4, 2011
Gap in treatment analyzed
Court ruling clarifies that gaps in medical treatment only matter for causation issues when defendants fail to establish prima facie lack of causation in serious injury claims.
Nov 29, 2018
Perl Standard and Causation: Delayed Treatment Defeats Carpal Tunnel Claim in New York
Santos v Traylor-Pagan analysis: carpal tunnel causation fails without contemporaneous treatment under the Perl standard in NY personal injury threshold cases.
Jul 17, 2017![Peer report is sufficient to prima facie prove lack of serious injury (Ins Law Sec. 5102[d])](https://cdn.jtnylaw.com/blog/peer-report-is-sufficient-to-prima-facie-prove-lack-of-serious-injury-ins-law-sec-5102d.avif)
Peer report is sufficient to prima facie prove lack of serious injury (Ins Law Sec. 5102[d])
Fourth Department ruling confirms peer review expert reports can establish prima facie defense against serious injury claims under NY Insurance Law Section 5102(d).
Feb 8, 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 5102(d) issues 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.
