The absence of an expert is fatal to prove causation
June 13, 2014 4 Comments
Donoso v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 04071 (1st Dept 2014) Plaintiff claims that she suffered permanent consequential and significant limitations of
Donoso v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 04071 (1st Dept 2014) Plaintiff claims that she suffered permanent consequential and significant limitations of
Ward v Lincoln Elec. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 02668 (1st Dept. 2014) I think this might be a way around the Appellate Term peer hearsay paradigm
Vargas v Sabri, 2014 NY Slip Op 01666 (1st Dept. 2014) In the world of the use of bio mechanical engineer issues, this case is actually a
Fisher v Hill, 2014 NY Slip Op 00830 (4th Dept. 2014) It is infrequent that I post on the serious injury threshold. But a Plaintiff on a
Bacani v Rosenberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 00737 (1st Dept. 2014) “As this Court previously found, the opinions of plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harrigan, failed to raise a
Cruz v Martinez, 2013 NY Slip Op 03417 (1st Dept. 2013) “Even if an anxiety disorder could constitute a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance
Kew Garden Imaging v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50748(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013) “The Civil Court precluded defendant’s medical witnesses
Payne v Buffalo Gen. Hosp., 2012 NY Slip Op 04901 (4th Dept. 2012) [Oral application granted and untimely papers deemed accepted] “With respect to appeal No.
Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v Metlife Auto & Home, 2012 NY Slip Op 22064 (Civ. Ct. Queens Co. 2012) “In any event, where
Medical Assoc., P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50392(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012). I wrote the reply that got this case dismissed on
Maraviglia v Lokshina, 2012 NY Slip Op 01593 (2d Dept. 2012) Count the comments here: (1) Counsel repeatedly denigrated the medical background of the injured plaintiff’s
Psychology YM, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51316(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011) Why this objection was even considered is crazy. It
I mean to pose this previously, but it slipped my mind. Check this out: Wild v. Catholic Health System, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05337 (4th Dept.
Matter of State of New York v Mark S., 2011 NY Slip Op 04792 (3d Dept. 2011) An astute commentator could probably write an article correlating
If you are going to spend money on a rebuttal, make sure (s)he has the proper credentials. As many people have told me in life, you
Matter of State of New York v Andrew O., 2011 NY Slip Op 02715 (2011) This from the Court of Appeals. In a Mental Health Law
Rowe v Fisher, 2011 NY Slip Op 01721 (1st Dept. 2011) “The motion court properly precluded plaintiffs’ expert testimony on chelation because the expert’s theories were
Consolidated Imaging P.C. (Rafailova) v Travelers Indem. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50159(U)(Civ Ct. Richmond Co. 2011) I did not miss this case. I just avoid
Matter of State of New York v Motzer, 2010 NY Slip Op 09688 (4th Dept. 2010) “Respondent contends that the court erred in allowing petitioner’s expert
Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 09570 (1st Dept. 2010) In a decision that produced a three judge majority and a two judge concurrence
