Pre-Existing Injuries & Causation
Medical evidence of accident-related aggravation, prior conditions and treatment gaps, with dated case notes and the 2026 serious-injury amendment.
35 articles from 2009–2020 · 1 current · 22 reviewed case notes · by Jason Tenenbaum
Start here
The explainer for this topic. Read it first; the articles below go deeper on single issues.
How the firm handles these matters
Reviewed case notes by year
Notes on decisions from earlier years that the firm has re-read against current law. Each note states when it was last reviewed and what has changed since.
2019
2018
2017
2014
2013
2012
2010
Older archive
Case notes as they were written at the time. They have not been re-checked against later decisions, so treat them as history and confirm the current rule before relying on one.
2020 (1)
2018 (2)
2017 (2)
2010 (3)
Frequently asked questions
How is causation established in New York personal injury cases?
Causation is proved with medical evidence that connects the accident to the injury claimed. In a motor-vehicle case the Court of Appeals requires objective proof of the injury; a doctor's numeric measurement of lost range of motion, or a qualitative assessment with an objective basis, can support the claim, while subjective complaints alone cannot (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Systems, 98 NY2d 345 (2002)). In Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566 (2005), the Court held that even with objective proof, a gap in treatment, an intervening medical problem or a pre-existing condition can interrupt the chain of causation, and a plaintiff who does not explain it risks dismissal.