Rivera v American United Transp. Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rivera v American United Transp. Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 33803(U) July 1, 2013 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 308666/10 Judge: Mitchell J. Danziger Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] Fl~ED Jul 09 2013 Bronx County Clerk SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK· COUNTY OF BRONX: PART IA-2 ---------------------------------------------------------------)( WILFREDO RIVERA, Plaintiff, DECISION and ORDER Index No. 308666/10 -against- Present: Hon. Mitchell Danziger AJSC AMERICAN UNITED TRANSPORTATION INC., and RAFAEL SORIANO-ROSARIO LUIS, Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------)( Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in reviewing the underlying motion for summary judgment: Notice of Motion and annexed Exhibits and Affirmations ..................... :............................. I Memo ofLaw ....................................................................................................................... 2 Affirmation in Opposition .................................................................................... ,.............. .3 Reply Affirmation ................................................................................................................ .4 Plaintiff Wilfredo Rivera commenced this action alleging that he sustained serious injuries as a result of an automobile accident caused by the defendants' negligence on June 6, 20 I 0. Plaintiff claims that the defendants' taxi struck the plaintiffs bicycle. Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on the ground that the pla.intiff did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d). The defendants offer as proof of the absence of serious injury to plaintiff, Wilfredo Rivera the medical affirmation of Dr. Lisa Nason, an orthopedist. Dr. Nason conducted an orthopedic examination of the plaintiff on January 23, 2012. Dr. Nason's report lists the plaintiffs claimed injuries as including the following: "The claimant alleges that he injured his neck, lower back, [* 2] Fl~ED Jul 09 2013 Bronx County Clerk bilateral knees and left ankle ... " The doctor's report states as follows: "He sustained a left knee fracture." Range of motion testing of the cervical and lumbar spine, bilateral knees and left foot/ankle revealed normal ranges. The doctor's report states that "there is no evidence ofresiduals or permanency." In support of the motion the defendants also submit a medical affirmation from Dr. JeanRobert Desrouleaux, neurologist. Dr. Desrouleaux performed a neurological examination of the plaintiff on January 23, 2012. The doctor's report contains the following history: "He sustained a laceration to the bridge of the nose and received 6 sutures as well as lacerations to the forehead and bilateral knees. The claimant was transported by ambulance and treated at St Barnabas Hospital and discharged. He sustained a left knee fracture." Range of motion testing of plaintiffs cervical and lumbosacral spine revealed normal ranges of motion. Dr. Desrouleaux's report concluded that the plaintiffs injuries to his cervical and lumbar spines were resolved. The moving papers contains an MRI report on plaintiffs left knee taken on June 29, 2010 which indicates as follows: "Bony contusion/microfracture of the anteromedial and anterolateral femoral conc;lyle... " In support of the motion the defendants submit an affirmed report by Dr. A. Robert Tantleff, a radiologist. Dr. Tantleff reviewed the MRI of plaintiffs left knee and concluded as follows: "There is no evidence of osseous fracture or dislocation." Dr. Tantleff also reviewed the MRI of plaintiffs lumbar spine dated June 29, 2010 and concluded as follows: "Based on the images as submitted, age related and age consistent degenerative changes of the lumbar spine most pronounced at L3-4. The findings denoted are of no definitive clinical significance and have no correlation to the current date of incident." 2 [* 3] Fll,ED Jul 09 2013 Bronx County Clerk In opposition, plaintiff submits an Affirmation from treating physician Dr. Nagaveni Rao. Dr. Rao's report states as follows:" Based 1,1pon the objective examination and my review of the MRI report, my diagnostic impression was as follows: MRI confirmed indication of a meniscal tear and fracture ... " Further, "On June 29, 2010, an MRI of the lumbar spine was performed. I have reviewed these MRI films which revealed a disc bulge... at L3-4." The doctor's initial examination of the plaintiff took place on June 28, 2010 which revealed restricted ranges of motion in plaintiffs lumbar spine. Further, a follow-up examination of plaintiffs lumbar spine on August 22, 2012 showed continued restrictions. Dr. Rao' s impression was that the plaintiff sustained a "fracture and partial permanent restriction of motion of the left knee and partial permanent restriction of the lumbar spine." Further, ·the aforesaid injuries are causally related to the accident in question. In opposition, plaintiff submits an affirmed report by Dr. Salish Chandra which states as follows: "I read the following MRI of the plaintiff, Wilfredo Rivera's left knee dated June 29, 201 O." The doctor's impression was as follows: "Bony contusion/microfracture of the anteromedial femoral condyle ... " Further, Dr. Chandra's report stated as follows:"! have reviewed the affirmed report of defendants' radiologist, A. Robert Tantleff, M.D., dated August 24, 2011 and I disagree with the findings set forth therein." DISCUSSION The proponent of a motion for summary judgment "must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers." (JMD Holding Corp v Congress Financial Corporation, 4 NY 3d 373 [2005], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY 2d 320 3 [* 4] FILED Jul 09 2013 Bronx County Clerk [1986]; Lesane v Tejada, 15 AD 3d 358 [2"dDept 2005].) In the present action, the burden rests on the defendants to establish, by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form, that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury as a result of the accident. The burden thereafter shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence ofa triable issue of fact. (Seminara v Grossman, 253 AD 2d 420 [2d Dept 1998].) The Court of Appeals emphasized in Pommells v Perez that litigation can be commenced against a car owner or driver for damages caused by an accident only in the event of serious injury. (Pommels v Perez, 4 NY 3d 566 [2005]; Insurance Law §5104[a].) Insurance Law§ 5102(d) defines serio.us injury as: a personal injury which results in ........ permanent loss of use ofa body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment. A claim of serious injury can be substantiated by an expert's designation of a numeric percentage of a plaintiffs loss ofrange of motion. (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 98 NY 2d 345 [2002].) In the case of Lopez v Senatore (65 NY 2d l 017 [1985]), the Court held that where a treating physician, in an affidavit supported by exhibits, set forth the injuries and course of 4 [* 5] FILED Jul 09 2013 Bronx County Clerk treatment, identified a limitation of movement of the neck of only 10 degrees to the right or left, and on that predicate expressed the opinion that there was a significant limitation of use of a described body function or system, such evidence was sufficient for the denial of summary judgment. A bulging or herniated disc may constitute serious injury if objective evidence exists as to the_ extent oftlie alleged physical limitation resulting from the disc injury and its duration. (Espinal v Galicia, 290 AD 2d 528 [2"' Dept 2002].) Dr. Rao's report stated as follows: "MRI confirmed indication of a. meniscal tear and fracture." Dr. Rao's report concluded that the aforesaid injuries "were traumatic in nature and causally related to the June 6, 20 I 0, accident." The aforesaid tear and/or fracture raises triable issues of fact (See, Yuen v. Arka Mem01y Cab Corp., 80 AD 3d 481 (!st Dept., 2011 ); Peluso v. Janice Taxi Co., Inc., 77 AD 3d 491 (!"Dept., 2010). The medical reports are in conflict with respect to serious injury. The defendants' examining physician and radiologist, concluded that the plaintiffs injuries are not causally related to the accident and/or degenerative in nature. In contrast, the plaintiffs treating physician found permanent injures as stated above. (See, Duran v. Kabir, 93 AD 3d 566 (I st Dept., 2012). Dr. Rao's report indicates that the doctor recommended "to follow physical therapy three (3) times per week for the neck, lumbar spine, left knee, and left ankle ... " Further, "Mr. Rivera continued to treat with my office at that frequency for approximately three (3) months following his accident, during which time he was substantially incapacitated from his normal routine and customary activities." In Pommels v. Perez (4 NY 3d 566, supra), the Court of Appeals required a plaintiff who stops medical treatment to "offer some reasonable explanation for having done so." This Court finds 5 [* 6] FILED Jul 09 2013 Bronx County Clerk ,thanhe plaintiff herein has provided a reasonable explanation for his treatment gap. (See Brown v Achy, 9 AD 3d 30 [!"Dept 2004]; Turner-Brewster v Arce,17 AD 3d 189 [I st Dept 2005].) Viewing the objective medical evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, this Court finds that the aforesaid meniscal tear and fracture which the defendants dispute as well as plaintiffs limitations of motion of his lumbar spine both in the months following plaintiffs accident and thereafter describe a serious injury and raise a triable issue of fact. (Toure v Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 98 NY 2d 345, supra; Brown v Achy, 9 AD 3d 30 [!st Dept 2004]; Vitale v Lev Express Cab Corp, 273 AD2d 225 [2"d Dept 2000]; Dileo v Blumberg, 250 AD 2d 364 [1st Dept 1998].) For the foregoing reasons, the motion by the defendants for summary judgment on threshold is denied. This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court. Dated: t 2'6, 2013 "Jvl'\ I So ordered, Mitchell Danzi er,AJSC 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.