Causation defense fails when ROM diminishment not explained

When Medical Experts Fall Short in Causation Defense

In New York no-fault insurance litigation, defendants frequently attempt to escape liability by claiming a plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing or degenerative rather than accident-related. However, as the Fourth Department recently demonstrated in Shah v Nowakowski, these causation defenses require more than conclusory statements to succeed.

The case illustrates a common pitfall for defense medical experts: failing to address objective medical evidence that contradicts their opinions. When medical records show measurable changes in a plaintiff’s condition post-accident — such as decreased range of motion — defense experts cannot simply ignore this evidence while claiming injuries are unrelated to the motor vehicle collision.

This ruling reinforces that successful causation defenses in New York no-fault insurance law require thorough analysis of all available medical evidence, not selective interpretation that supports a predetermined conclusion.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Shah v Nowakowski, 2022 NY Slip Op 01952 (4th Dept. 2022)

“Contrary to defendant’s contention, her own submissions in support of the motion raise triable issues of fact whether the motor vehicle accident caused plaintiff’s alleged injuries (see Carter v Patterson, 197 AD3d 857, 858 ; Schaubroeck v Moriarty, 162 AD3d 1608, 1609 ). Defendant submitted the report of her expert physician, who concluded that plaintiff’s injuries were either preexisting or degenerative in nature. The report of defendant’s expert, however, “does not establish that plaintiff’s condition is the result of a preexisting degenerative inasmuch as it fails to account for evidence that plaintiff had no complaints of pain prior to the accident” (Carter, 197 AD3d at 858 ). Further, defendant’s expert failed to address plaintiff’s medical records, which noted that plaintiff’s range of motion had further decreased by 25% after the accident”

I feel like we almost have to look to the Fourth Department for common sense solutions to our auto negligence legal problems…

Key Takeaway

Defense medical experts cannot successfully establish causation defenses by making conclusory statements about pre-existing conditions while ignoring objective medical evidence. Courts require experts to address all relevant evidence, including documented changes in range of motion and absence of pre-accident complaints, to defeat causation claims in motor vehicle cases.