Shabrina Solano v. American United Transportation Inc. et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether a motor-vehicle-accident plaintiff satisfied the No-Fault serious injury threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d) [defines categories of "serious injury" (e.g., significant limitation, permanent consequential limitation, 90/180-day impairment) required to recover for non-economic loss].
Denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability as moot and granted defendants’ cross-motions dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury.
Reinstated plaintiff’s claims for significant limitation of use (cervical spine, lumbar spine, right knee, and right shoulder) and granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability to the extent of finding no culpable conduct by plaintiff.
Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing on the right shoulder by not examining or opining on that body part, and failed on the cervical/lumbar/knee claims by not reviewing MRIs and by conceding causally related strains; plaintiff’s physicians showed quantified range-of-motion limitations creating triable issues. However, permanent consequential limitation claims were dismissed due to unexplained cessation of treatment, and the 90/180-day claim failed because plaintiff missed less than one week of work.
Background
Plaintiff, an innocent passenger, was injured on November 23, 2018, when a vehicle driven by Julio Alfredo Garcia collided with a vehicle owned by American United Transportation Inc. and driven by Raul Torres de Jesus. She alleged injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine, right shoulder, and right knee.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied plaintiff’s liability motion as moot and granted defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d).
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified: (1) denied defendants’ cross-motions insofar as they sought dismissal of plaintiff’s significant limitation of use claims for the cervical spine, lumbar spine, right knee, and right shoulder; (2) granted plaintiff’s motion on liability to the extent of finding no culpable conduct by plaintiff as an innocent passenger; and (3) otherwise affirmed, including dismissal of permanent consequential limitation claims due to unexplained treatment gap and dismissal of the 90/180-day claim based on minimal time missed from work.
Legal Significance
Clarifies defendants’ prima facie burden on serious injury motions: failure to examine a claimed body part, to review MRIs, or an expert concession of accident-related strains undermines dismissal; quantified range-of-motion conflicts create triable issues. Also reaffirms that an innocent passenger is entitled to summary judgment on liability and that unexplained cessation of treatment can defeat permanent consequential limitation claims.
Defendants must address all claimed body parts with objective review (including MRIs) and avoid causation concessions to prevail on serious injury threshold motions; passengers can secure liability findings, but gaps in treatment without adequate explanation will defeat permanent consequential limitation claims.