Key Takeaway
Learn how New York courts evaluate causation in personal injury cases through expert testimony and medical evidence, including key strategies for proving injury causation.
Establishing causation is one of the most critical elements in New York personal injury litigation. Plaintiffs must prove not only that they suffered injuries, but that those injuries were directly caused by the defendant’s actions. This burden becomes particularly challenging when defendants present expert testimony questioning the connection between the accident and claimed injuries.
The Streety v Toure case from New York’s First Department demonstrates how courts weigh competing expert opinions on causation. This decision illustrates the strategic importance of comprehensive medical documentation and expert testimony in overcoming defense challenges to injury causation—issues that frequently arise in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases where proving the extent and origin of injuries is essential for recovery.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Streety v Toure, 2019 NY Slip Op 04487 (1st Dept. 2019)
(1) “The report of defendants’ expert emergency medicine physician is sufficient to establish their prima facie burden on the issue of causation insofar as the physician opined that the record of plaintiff’s examination in the emergency room showed findings inconsistent with his claimed injuries.”
(2) ” In opposition, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to serious injury of a permanent nature through the submission of his pertinent medical records documenting complaints of pain and treatment to the affected body parts within days of the accident (see Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208, 217-218 ) as well as the affirmed report of his treating orthopedic surgeon, who reviewed plaintiff’s medical history, his own treatment of plaintiff, and plaintiff’s MRIs, and who recounted his direct observations of plaintiff’s injuries during surgery and opined that they were causally related to the accident”
So the surgeon wrote an affidavit that accounted for the history, the operative report and opined visually a causally related injury consistent with an MVA. That takes the case to trial.
Key Takeaway
Courts recognize that treating physicians who conduct surgery and directly observe injuries have significant credibility in establishing causation. When a surgeon provides comprehensive testimony reviewing medical history, operative findings, and imaging studies while opining on causal relationship, this creates sufficient factual issues to survive summary judgment motions challenging injury causation.
