Key Takeaway
New York court ruling creates apparent contradiction in no-fault threshold requirements for significant limitation vs. permanent consequential limitation cases.
Understanding the Threshold Paradox in New York No-Fault Law
New York’s no-fault insurance system requires injured parties to meet specific injury thresholds before pursuing personal injury lawsuits against at-fault drivers. Two critical categories under Insurance Law § 5102(d) are “significant limitation of use” and “permanent consequential limitation of use.” While these categories might seem straightforward, recent court decisions have created what appears to be an irreconcilable contradiction in how permanency requirements are applied.
The challenge lies in determining whether permanency is required for each threshold category. Courts have established that objective signs of continuing disability are crucial in threshold cases, but the permanency requirements between these two categories have become murky. This confusion can significantly impact personal injury cases, as plaintiffs must carefully navigate which threshold category best supports their claim.
Understanding these distinctions is vital because choosing the wrong threshold approach can result in case dismissal, even when legitimate injuries exist that should qualify for compensation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Rosenblum v Irby, 2021 NY Slip Op 02854 (3d Dept. 2021)
(1) “As far as the significant limitation of use category is concerned, permanency of limitation is not required (see Lavrinovich v Conrad, 180 AD3d 1265, 1269 ]; Gates v Longden, 120 AD3d 980, 981 ).”
(2) “Moreover, evidence that a plaintiff’s range of motion has significantly improved or returned to normal in the affected body organ, member, function or system will preclude a finding of a permanent consequential limitation of use and/or significant limitation of use”
Try to harmonize this. I cannot do it.
Key Takeaway
This Rosenblum decision creates a logical contradiction that defies resolution. The court states permanency isn’t required for significant limitation cases, yet simultaneously holds that evidence of improvement defeats both permanent consequential limitation AND significant limitation claims. This paradox leaves practitioners without clear guidance on how to properly frame threshold arguments, potentially leading to cases where plaintiffs inadvertently defeat their own claims through medical evidence showing improvement.
