Understanding Self-Imposed ROM Limitations in Personal Injury Cases: What New York Plaintiffs Need to Know

What Are Self-Imposed ROM Limitations?

Last reviewed: September 2026.

A range-of-motion report records how far a person can move an examined body part. When a defense physician calls a restriction “self-imposed,” the physician is attributing it to the person’s effort rather than an injury that prevents movement. The label needs an explanation. It does not decide the lawsuit.

This overview starts with Mondesir v Ahmed, then connects the archive’s notes on restricted movement, changing examination findings and pain-and-suffering evidence.

What Mondesir decided

In Mondesir v Ahmed, 175 AD3d 1291 (2d Dept 2019), a defense expert measured significant restrictions in the plaintiff’s cervical spine but did not adequately support the opinion that they were self-imposed. The defendants therefore failed to establish their initial entitlement to dismissal on the serious-injury threshold.

The Second Department reversed the dismissal and denied their motion. It did not need to decide whether the plaintiff’s opposing papers were sufficient. That procedural result kept the claim alive; it did not establish liability, determine damages or prove that every recorded restriction was accident-related.

Earlier decisions cited in Mondesir include Singleton v F & R Royal, Rivas v Hill, Miller v Ebrahim, Mercado v Mendoza and Miller v Bratsilova. Their records differ: Singleton and Bratsilova address significant restrictions found by the moving defendants’ own experts, without laying out a universal test for detecting self-restriction.

Read the findings and the explanation together

A useful review starts with the report itself:

• Which body parts were examined, what movements were tested, and what findings were recorded?
• What evidence supports the opinion that the restriction reflects limited effort?
• Does the report address the injuries and aggravation actually claimed?
• If earlier and later findings differ, does the medical explanation account for that difference?

Perl v Meher, 18 NY3d 208 (2011) rejected a rule requiring immediate numerical ROM measurements. Early clinical observations followed by later measurements could support the claims there. The Court of Appeals still required objective proof and distinguished measurement of severity from evidence connecting the injury to the accident.

The record can also defeat a claim. In Rose v Tall, minor restrictions and unexplained differences between examinations did not raise a factual issue. In Hayes v Gaceur, early and later findings, imaging review and the physician’s causal explanation supported some claimed injuries, but not all. Neither opinion supplies a clinical rule for how every patient’s condition should develop.

Latest developments

Still current (September 2026): Hiller v Jetex Services, Inc. (July 29, 2026) cited Mondesir and again rejected an inadequately supported self-imposed-limitation opinion.

Hiller also shows why causation needs its own analysis. The defense initially supported its argument that the spinal injuries were unrelated to the accident; the plaintiffs answered with evidence raising a factual dispute. Separately, the defense failed to negate serious injury because its expert had not adequately explained the measured restrictions. Denial of dismissal was affirmed.

Legal Update (September 2026): Laws of 2026, chapter 58, Part EE §§ 1 and 4 removed the 90/180-day category for actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026. Older decisions must be read under the version applicable to their cases.

The limitation-of-use categories remain in Insurance Law § 5102(d). The motor-vehicle non-economic-loss restrictions appear in § 5104(a); they are not a threshold for every slip-and-fall claim or a test of whether each no-fault medical bill is payable.

Frequently Asked Questions About ROM Limitations in Personal Injury Cases

What should I expect during a range of motion examination?

Ask the examining clinician to explain the movements and report any pain or difficulty accurately. This page addresses how courts assess the report; it does not prescribe how far you should move or what testing is appropriate for you.

Can I prepare for a defense medical examination involving ROM testing?

Review the examination arrangements with your attorney and provide an accurate medical history. Do not try to produce a particular measurement. Questions about safe movement and testing belong with the examining clinician.

How do courts determine if ROM limitations are legitimate or self-imposed?

The court evaluates the evidence and the burden on the particular motion. In Mondesir, the defense expert’s unexplained restrictions left the defendants’ initial burden unmet. A supported report and the opposing medical evidence can present a different record.

What happens if a defense expert claims my ROM limitations are self-imposed?

Have the report reviewed alongside the pleaded injuries and treatment records. The explanation matters, as do any separate causation grounds. An unsupported label may defeat a dismissal motion without proving the plaintiff’s entire case.

How long after an accident can ROM limitations develop?

There is no single medical timetable supplied by these decisions. Perl distinguishes later measurement of severity from proof connecting an injury to an accident. A clinician must assess your symptoms; counsel should review how the records support the claim.

Cases in this topic

These four companion notes were published from 2017 through 2022. Dates identify the original posts. The cases address different medical records and procedural stages; the damages appeal appears separately from the threshold motions.

Restricted movement and changing findings

• Mahler: unexplained restrictions in the defense report — 2022-11-05
• Hayes: early findings, later measurements and causation — 2018-06-08
• Rose: inconsistencies between ROM examinations — 2017-05-06

Pain-and-suffering review after trial

• Starkman: appellate review of pain-and-suffering damages — 2017-03-25

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Browse the New York legal encyclopedia for the topic directory. Related archive notes:

• Mahler: the defense expert’s unexplained ROM restrictions
• Hayes: early and later findings on different claimed injuries
• Rose: explaining inconsistent ROM measurements
• Kim: the original self-restricted-motion case note
• Il Chung Lim: a limited-ROM finding and unanswered degeneration evidence
• Dixon: accident-related aggravation of a prior condition

These are historical discussions, including comparisons between liability litigation and no-fault medical-bill disputes. Use the current primary authorities above when evaluating today’s law.

For a review of a disputed medical report in a personal injury case or car accident claim, contact our office or call (516) 750-0595.

This page provides general information, not advice about an individual claim.