18 N.Y.3d 208 (2011)
r
r
Under New York’s No-Fault Law, quantitative range of motion measurements taken by a medical expert are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding the severity of a plaintiff’s injury, even if those measurements are not contemporaneous with the accident, provided causation is established.
r
r
Summary
r
These consolidated cases address the evidentiary burden for establishing a “serious injury” under New York’s No-Fault Law (Insurance Law § 5102[d]). The Court of Appeals held that numerical range of motion measurements taken by a doctor, even if not immediately after the accident, can be sufficient to prove a serious injury if causation is established. The Court reversed the Appellate Division in two cases where such evidence was presented, finding a triable issue of fact, but affirmed in a third case where the evidence of a serious injury was lacking. The court reiterated its skepticism toward soft-tissue injury claims but emphasized the importance of reserving credibility determinations for the fact-finder.
r
r
Facts
r
Joseph Perl, David Adler, and Sheila Travis separately sued for injuries sustained in car accidents. Each plaintiff claimed their injuries met the “serious injury” threshold required to recover non-economic losses under New York’s No-Fault Law. Perl and Adler presented expert testimony from Dr. Bleicher, who performed initial qualitative assessments shortly after their accidents and later quantitative range of motion measurements. Travis claimed a temporary disability preventing her from usual activities for 90 of 180 days post-accident.
r
r
Procedural History
r
In Perl, the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint. In Adler, a jury found for the plaintiffs, but the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint. In Travis, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, which the Appellate Division affirmed. Perl appealed as of right; Adler and Travis were granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether quantitative range of motion measurements taken by a medical expert are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding the severity of a plaintiff’s injury under New York’s No-Fault Law, even if not contemporaneous with the accident.
r
2. Whether the plaintiff in Travis v. Batchi presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102(d).
r
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because contemporaneous quantitative measurements are not required; later measurements are permissible if causation is established.
r
2. No, because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of a significant, permanent impairment or a temporary disability that prevented her from performing substantially all of her usual activities for the requisite period.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court reasoned that while contemporaneous medical reports are essential to prove causation, the severity of the injuries can be measured later. The court found “nothing obviously wrong or illogical” with this approach. The court rejected a rigid rule requiring contemporaneous numerical measurements of range of motion, noting that it could “have perverse results” by penalizing plaintiffs for not immediately seeking doctors focused on litigation-ready documentation. Regarding Travis, the Court found insufficient evidence of either a permanent impairment or a temporary disability that met the statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that even Travis’s subjective descriptions did not demonstrate a disability preventing “substantially all” of her usual activities for 90 of 180 days, and the doctor’s reports lacked detail on her limitations during that period. Addressing the accusation of malingering by a defense physician in Perl, the Court stated that such concerns pertain to credibility, an issue for the fact-finder, not the appellate court. The Court quoted Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., stating that “subjective complaints alone are not sufficient” to support a claim of serious injury, emphasizing the need for “objective proof.” The Court also directly addressed causation, stating,