Serious Injury Threshold (Insurance Law § 5102(d))
To sue for pain and suffering after a car accident in New York, your injuries must meet the "serious injury" threshold. Courts evaluate range-of-motion limitations, fractures, and permanent consequential limitations.
84 articles from 2010–2021 · 1 current · 6 reviewed case notes · by Jason Tenenbaum
Current articles
Articles the firm treats as current: published since 2024, or older and re-checked against today's law. Most recently published or reviewed first.
- Understanding Self-Imposed ROM Limitations in Personal Injury Cases: What New York Plaintiffs Need to Know Reviewed Sep 11, 2026 · first published 2019
Learn how NY courts handle self-imposed ROM limitation claims in personal injury cases. Expert legal guidance. Call 516-750-0595 for free consultation.
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.
2016
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.
2019 (4)
2018 (10)
- NY Economic Loss Recovery: When Serious Injury Threshold Not Required
- Gap in treatment analyzed
- 20% deficit is a serious injury
- Court of Appeals upholds dismissal of a 5102(d) case (4-3)
- Second Department once again now recognizes a gap in treatment as a basis to non-suit Plaintiffs
- Significant limitaiton prong of Ins Law 5102(d)
- Out of Scope, Out of Mind: When Physicians Testify Outside Their Specialty in New York
- How Treatment Gaps and Inconsistent Findings Defeat Serious Injury Claims in New York
- Feigned issue of fact coupled with cessation of treatment
- “trauma increase the rate of disc dessication”
2017 (9)
- Femur Fracture and New York's Serious Injury Threshold: When Causation Becomes a Question of Fact
- The cited to report raised an issue of fact
- Oh somebody had a bad day.
- The injuries are “not-related” peer review in a 5102(d) case
- An expert who saw plaintiff once may testify
- The $200,000 bulge
- Perl Standard and Causation: Delayed Treatment Defeats Carpal Tunnel Claim in New York
- Mild, minor, slight
- Police Accident Reports and CPLR 4518(a): When They Come Into Evidence — and When They Get Redacted
2016 (5)
2015 (7)
2014 (5)
- The inability to recall which shoulder was hurt damages the plaintiff’s case
- Permanent consequential v. Significant limitaton – the value of early surgery
- An interesting dissent on a 5102(d) case
- Surgery was done so well that plaintiff lost his day in court
- Peer report is sufficient to prima facie prove lack of serious injury (Ins Law Sec. 5102[d])
2013 (8)
- Cessation of treatment and its interplay with no-fault fraud?
- Inconsistency between chiropractor report and MRI reports spells the end of personal injury plaintiff's claim
- Range of motion measurements do not require an instrument
- A Prima facie showing of lack of serious injury does not require a review of plaintiff’s records
- Defense expert states that injury aggravated pre-existing condition – yet jury verdict dismissing claim affirmed
- The jury could not find under a reasonable view of the evidence that plaintiff failed to sustain a serious injury under 5102(d)
- Deterioration in the 5102(d) setting must be explained
- Serious Injury Law: Permanent Consequential vs. Significant Limitation in Long Island & NYC Cases
2012 (13)
- Liability Includes Serious Injury in the Fourth Department: Monette v Trummer
- Proof of exacerbation insufficient in 5102(d) case to defeat summary judgment motion
- Another liability appeal
- Causation speculative – failure to rebut doctor
- 10-month initial gap renders causality speculative
- 90/180 claim has serious consequences despite 5102(d) dismissal of permanent consequential and significan limitation
- Range of Motion Loss and the Serious Injury Threshold: When Perl Doesn't Help
- Permanent consequential and Significant Limitation non-suited despite Perl
- 90/180 discussion – interpretation of Perl.
- 5102(d) and a dissent discussing "no-fault"
- They call her crash
- What are objective signs of continuing disability?
- A bad day for Mr. Pearson
2011 (2)
2010 (13)
- Exageration of symptoms beats a threshold motion
- They sunk their own battleship
- A signifcant knee surgery does not defeat the 5102(d) serious injury threshold
- The destruction of peer hearsay: It is not hearsay – and much more
- A Plaintiff's own hospital records defeated his own threshold summary judgment motion
- Causation, Renewal and a probable trip to the Court of Appeals
- Court of Appeals tells the Appellate Division to adjudicate 5102(d) motions as either "all or nothing"
- Knee Surgery for ACL and Meniscus Tears: Understanding the Serious Injury Threshold in New York Personal Injury Cases
- An IME doctor must offer an explanation why he believes a Claimant's diminished range of motion is self restricted
- An interesting 5102(d) case involving a knee surgery
- First Department Legal Decisions: Impact on No-Fault Practice and New York Legal Practitioners
- No-Fault Insurance Claims: Causation Requirements and Economic Loss Recovery in New York
- 5102(d) – What NOT to Do: Critical Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Personal Injury Case
Frequently asked questions
What is the serious injury threshold under Insurance Law §5102(d)?*
Insurance Law § 5102(d) defines serious injury as a personal injury that results in death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, a fracture, loss of a fetus, permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system, permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, or significant limitation of use of a body function or system. The date the action was commenced decides which definition applies. Law changed May 27, 2026: Insurance Law § 5102(d) no longer includes the 90/180-day category of a medically determined non-permanent injury for actions commenced on or after that date; actions commenced earlier are still judged under the nine-category definition that includes it.
Why does the serious injury threshold matter?*
Insurance Law § 5104(a) bars recovery for non-economic loss, meaning pain and suffering, in a negligence action between covered persons arising from use of a motor vehicle unless the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). CPLR 3016(g) requires the complaint to plead it. Subjective complaints alone are not enough (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Systems, 98 NY2d 345 (2002)). Law changed May 27, 2026: under Insurance Law § 5104(a) the trier of fact may not decide whether an injury is serious until it has determined fault, for actions commenced on or after that date; earlier actions are not subject to that sequencing rule.
* The law on this point has changed. The answer states the change, its effective date, and which claims the earlier rule still governs. Answers reviewed against the statutes and decisions in force as of September 2026.