Self imposed ROM limitation

Range of Motion Limitations in Personal Injury Cases: Expert Medical Evidence Standards

When you are injured in an accident on Long Island, one of the most critical aspects of your personal injury claim involves proving the extent of your physical limitations. A recent appellate court decision, Mahler v Lewis, 2022 NY Slip Op 06123 (2d Dept. 2022), provides crucial guidance about how medical experts must support their opinions about range of motion (ROM) limitations—and what happens when they fail to do so properly.

In this case, the Second Department made it clear: “One of the defendant’s experts found significant limitations in the range of motion of the cervical and lumbar regions of the injured plaintiff’s spine, and failed to adequately explain and substantiate, with competent medical evidence, his belief that the limitations were self-imposed.”

This ruling has significant implications for personal injury cases across New York, particularly for plaintiffs seeking compensation for spinal injuries and movement restrictions.

Understanding Range of Motion in Personal Injury Cases

What is Range of Motion?

Range of motion refers to the extent of movement possible at a joint or series of joints. In personal injury cases, ROM measurements are crucial because they:

• Document objective physical limitations following an accident
• Provide measurable evidence of injury severity
• Help establish the extent of disability for compensation purposes
• Track recovery progress during treatment
• Support claims for future medical care and lost earning capacity

Common ROM Limitations After Accidents

Motor vehicle accidents, slip and falls, and other traumatic events frequently cause restrictions in:

Cervical Spine (Neck):

• Reduced ability to turn head left/right (rotation)
• Limited forward/backward neck movement (flexion/extension)
• Restricted side-to-side bending (lateral flexion)

Lumbar Spine (Lower Back):

• Difficulty bending forward (flexion)
• Limited backward extension
• Reduced side bending
• Impaired twisting motions

Extremities:

• Shoulder, elbow, wrist limitations
• Hip, knee, ankle restrictions
• Finger and toe movement impairments

The Problem with “Self-Imposed” Limitation Claims

Defense Strategy Exposed

Insurance companies and defense attorneys often try to minimize injury claims by arguing that physical limitations are “self-imposed”—meaning the injured person is consciously or unconsciously restricting their own movement rather than being physically unable to move normally.

This defense strategy attempts to:

• Reduce settlement values by questioning injury legitimacy
• Avoid full compensation for legitimate limitations
• Shift blame to the plaintiff for their own restrictions
• Create doubt about objective findings through subjective interpretations

The Legal Standard for Expert Opinions

The Mahler decision reinforces critical requirements for medical expert testimony:

1. Adequate Explanation Required
Medical experts cannot simply state conclusions without proper reasoning. They must explain the basis for their opinions in detail.

2. Competent Medical Evidence Needed
Opinions must be supported by objective medical evidence, not just subjective observations or assumptions.

3. Scientific Foundation Essential
Expert conclusions must be grounded in accepted medical principles and practices.

4. Detailed Documentation Required
Experts must provide sufficient detail to allow courts to evaluate the reliability of their conclusions.

What This Means For You

If You are an Injured Party

Your Rights Are Protected: This decision strengthens your position when insurance companies try to claim your limitations are not real. Defense experts cannot simply wave their hands and declare your restrictions “self-imposed” without substantial medical evidence.

Document Everything: Work with your treating physicians to ensure:

• All ROM limitations are properly measured and documented
• Your symptoms are recorded consistently across visits
• Objective testing supports subjective complaints
• Treatment records reflect genuine attempts to improve

Do Not Let Defense Tactics Intimidate You: Insurance companies may pressure you to accept lower settlements by questioning your injuries. This decision shows courts will scrutinize unsupported defense expert opinions.

If You are a Medical Provider

Thorough Documentation is Critical: When treating patients with ROM limitations, ensure your records include:

• Specific degree measurements for all restricted movements
• Comparison to normal ranges for the patient’s age/condition
• Objective findings supporting subjective complaints
• Consistent measurements across multiple visits
• Response to various treatment modalities

Expert Testimony Standards: If called to testify, remember that opinions must be:

• Based on thorough examination and review
• Supported by objective medical evidence
• Explained in detail with scientific reasoning
• Consistent with accepted medical standards

Strategic Implications for Personal Injury Cases

Strengthening Plaintiff Cases

The Mahler decision provides several tactical advantages:

1. Challenge Weak Defense Experts
Demand detailed explanations and medical support for any claims that limitations are “self-imposed.”

2. Focus on Objective Evidence
Emphasize ROM measurements, imaging studies, and other objective findings that support your client’s limitations.

3. Expose Defense Bias
Highlight when defense experts rely on speculation rather than medical evidence.

Building Stronger Medical Records

Work with treating physicians to create comprehensive documentation:

• Initial post-accident ROM measurements
• Periodic reassessments showing consistent limitations
• Correlation with other objective findings
• Documentation of genuine treatment efforts
• Expert opinions based on thorough examination

Understanding the Broader Legal Context

New York State Approach to Medical Expert Evidence

New York courts have consistently required that medical expert opinions be:

• Scientifically reliable and based on accepted medical principles
• Adequately supported by the evidence in the record
• Properly explained with sufficient detail for judicial review
• Consistent with objective findings rather than mere speculation

Impact on Settlement Negotiations

This decision affects settlement discussions by:

• Strengthening plaintiff negotiating positions when ROM limitations are documented
• Weakening defense arguments based on unsupported “self-imposed” theories
• Encouraging more thorough medical documentation from all parties
• Raising the bar for defense expert qualifications and testimony

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What should I do if a defense expert claims my limitations are “self-imposed”?

A: Work with your attorney to demand detailed medical support for this opinion. The Mahler decision requires experts to provide competent medical evidence, not just speculation. Your legal team can challenge unsupported conclusions and highlight the lack of proper medical foundation.

Q: How can I prove my ROM limitations are genuine and not psychological?

A: Focus on objective evidence: consistent measurements by multiple healthcare providers, imaging studies showing structural damage, unsuccessful attempts at improvement through physical therapy, and correlation between your limitations and documented injuries. Multiple independent examinations showing similar restrictions are particularly valuable.

Q: Can old injuries affect my current ROM limitations after an accident?

A: Yes, but your attorney can argue that the accident either caused new limitations or aggravated pre-existing conditions. The key is distinguishing between your pre-accident baseline and current restrictions. Medical records before and after the accident help establish this distinction.

Q: What types of medical evidence best support ROM limitation claims?

A: The strongest evidence includes: formal ROM measurements by qualified healthcare providers, repeated measurements showing consistency, imaging studies correlating with clinical findings, physical therapy notes documenting genuine efforts to improve, and expert opinions based on thorough examination and objective evidence.

Q: How do courts typically handle conflicting expert opinions about ROM limitations?

A: Courts evaluate the quality of evidence supporting each opinion. The Mahler decision shows courts will scrutinize whether experts provide adequate explanations and competent medical evidence. Well-supported opinions based on objective findings typically carry more weight than conclusions based on speculation or inadequate examination.

Moving Forward After the Mahler Decision

This ruling represents an important victory for injured parties throughout New York. It reinforces the principle that insurance companies and their experts cannot simply dismiss legitimate physical limitations without proper medical evidence and detailed explanations.

For personal injury practitioners on Long Island and throughout New York, this decision provides powerful ammunition to challenge weak defense expert testimony and protect clients’ rights to fair compensation for genuine physical limitations.

The message is clear: medical experts must do more than simply state conclusions—they must support their opinions with competent medical evidence and adequate explanations that meet rigorous legal standards.

Get Expert Legal Help for Your ROM Limitation Case

If you have suffered range of motion limitations following an accident on Long Island, do not let insurance companies minimize your injuries with unsupported claims that your limitations are “self-imposed.” The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum understands the medical and legal complexities of ROM cases and will fight to ensure your limitations are properly documented and fairly compensated.

Our experienced team knows how to:

• Work with medical experts who provide thorough, well-supported opinions
• Challenge defense experts who rely on speculation rather than evidence
• Build comprehensive medical records that document your genuine limitations
• Negotiate settlements that reflect the true extent of your injuries
• Litigate cases when insurance companies refuse to offer fair compensation

Do not settle for less than you deserve. Call 516-750-0595 for a free consultation and learn how we can help protect your rights and secure the compensation you need for your range of motion limitations.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum is located on Long Island and serves clients throughout New York in personal injury, no-fault insurance, and medical malpractice cases. Learn more about our personal injury services, no-fault insurance practice, and motor vehicle accident representation.